Courts cannot interfere in transfer orders unless vitiated by mala fides or violation of statutory provisions.

The applicant, a Social Security Officer (SSO) at ESIC Model Hospital, New Delhi, challenged Transfer Order No. 54 of 2026 dated 10.04.2026, which moved her to Zonal MC Chandigarh in public interest

The applicant sought to remain in New Delhi citing severe personal hardships, including her own locomotor paralysis, her husband’s chronic diabetes, and her 82-year-old mother’s 100% disability

She argued the transfer violated various DoPT Office Memoranda (OMs) aimed at enhancing the status of women and supporting family life

The applicant submitted a representation on 13.04.2026 which remained undecided

The respondents contended that there were no vacancies in Delhi NCR and that the transfer was an incidence of service made in the public interest

1. Whether the transfer order is liable to be interfered with on the grounds of personal hardship and violation of administrative guidelines

2. Whether the applicant is entitled to interim protection based on precedents involving similar ESIC transfer disputes

The court primarily relied on the principle that transfer is an incidence of service and judicial interference is prohibited unless the order is vitiated by mala fides or violates statutory provisions, as established in Union of India v. S.L. Abbas and Namrata Verma v. State of U.P.

It applied the doctrine from Rajendra Roy v. Union of India, which mandates that personal difficulties are administrative matters for the department to consider via representations

Furthermore, it followed Dr. Subramanian Swamy v. State of Tamil Nadu and Nair Service Society v. Dr. T. Beermasthan, holding that judicial precedents must be understood in the specific factual and legal context of the case rather than as universal applications

The Tribunal observed that the applicant failed to demonstrate any mala fides or violation of mandatory statutory provisions, which are the only sustainable grounds for challenging a transfer

Regarding the applicant's reliance on previous ESIC cases where interim relief was granted (e.g., Sugan Lal Meena v. ESIC), the Tribunal distinguished those cases on facts, noting they involved different cadres, different transfer policies, or specific concessions made by respondents that were not present here

The Tribunal emphasized that under settled law, an employee cannot insist on a particular place of posting

However, citing R.S. Chaudhary v. State of M.P., the court noted that when a transfer policy is allegedly violated, the appropriate remedy is for the authorities to objectively consider the employee’s representation

It disposed of the O.A. by directing the competent authority to decide the applicant’s pending representation dated 13.04.2026 by passing a reasoned and speaking order within two weeks from the receipt of the judgment

No order was made as to costs