Courts will not interfere with transfers absent mala fides or violation of statutory rules.

The applicants, ESIC Group ‘C’ administrative staff in Tamil Nadu, challenged the Annual General Transfer order dated 28 February 2026, the common order dated 6 April 2026 disposing of their representations, and the relieving order dated 11 April 2026.

ESIC maintained that the transfers followed its Transfer Policy dated 10 January 2025 and that the applicants had completed the maximum ten-year tenure at Chennai station.

The matters were heard together; the Tribunal had earlier made the transfer and relieving orders subject to the outcome of the applications.

Whether the applicants’ tenure and HRMS-related objections established that their transfers were contrary to the Transfer Policy dated 10 January 2025.

Whether spouse, single-parent, medical, or educational circumstances, and the handling of the applicants’ representations, justified interference with the transfer orders.

Whether applicants whose children were taking Class 10 or 12 board examinations in the 2026–27 academic year were entitled to accommodation-related or transfer-consideration relief.

Under clauses 3.5 and 3.6 of ESIC’s Transfer Policy dated 10 January 2025, a “station” includes a city or town and its suburban area, and tenure is continuous stay at that station irrespective of the post or office held there; clause 4.3 sets a maximum station tenure of ten years, while clause 5.2(i) provides for tenure-completion transfers.

The Tribunal applied the settled principle that transfer is an incident of service and that, absent mala fides, breach of a statutory provision, or action by an incompetent authority, courts and tribunals should not ordinarily interfere.

It relied on Union of India v. S.L. Abbas (executive transfer guidelines do not ordinarily create enforceable rights).

It relied on Shilpi Bose v. State of Bihar and National Hydroelectric Power Corporation Ltd. v. Shri Bhagwan (limited grounds for judicial interference with transfers).

It relied on State of M.P. v. S.S. Kourav and Rajendra Roy v. Union of India (personal hardship is generally for the administration to consider).

It relied on Bank of India v. Jagjit Singh Mehta (spouse posting at the same station is desirable where practicable, but not an absolute entitlement).

It relied on State of U.P. v. Gobardhan Lal (administrative guidelines do not ordinarily confer legally enforceable transfer rights).

Clause 12.6 of the Transfer Policy permits retention of corporation or leased accommodation until the end of the academic session in specified circumstances.

The Tribunal found that the applicants had not challenged the 2025 Policy and held that its definition of tenure required service at Chennai station to be counted irrespective of cadre, post, or office.

It treated Avadi, Pallavaram, Tambaram, and K.K. Nagar as part of Chennai station and rejected the contention that earlier HRMS configurations or intra-station transfers defeated the ten-year tenure calculation.

It further held that the personal circumstances raised—including spouse, medical, and educational grounds—did not establish mala fides or breach of a statutory rule sufficient to invalidate the transfers; the cited executive guidelines did not confer an enforceable right to remain at Chennai.

However, for the applicants whose children were registered for Class 10 or 12 board examinations, it recognised the potential academic hardship and applied clause 12.6 to grant limited accommodation-related relief and directed fresh consideration of transfer preferences.

Those eight OAs were disposed of with directions that the applicants could retain corporation or leased accommodation, on payment of normal licence fee, until completion of the board examinations, upon request.

They were also directed to submit fresh representations within two weeks, identifying three preferred places and providing proof of their children’s enrolment; the respondents were directed to decide those representations by reasoned orders within one month thereafter.

Pending miscellaneous applications were closed, with no order as to costs.