Departmental authorities must objectively consider transfer policy violations and personal hardships through reasoned, speaking orders.

The applicant, a Deputy Director at ESIC Medical College and Hospitals, Basaidarapur, New Delhi, challenged a transfer order dated 02.04.2026

The order transferred him to SRO, Tirunelveli, Tamil Nadu, after he had completed only two years of his tenure at the current station

The applicant contended that the transfer violated Clauses 4.1, 5.2, and 7.3 of the Transfer Policy dated 19.12.2024, which prescribes a minimum tenure of three years

Furthermore, the applicant cited extreme personal hardships, noting that he suffers from chronic ailments and his son is undergoing treatment for Hodgkin’s Lymphoma (Cancer) at specialized hospitals in Delhi

The applicant had submitted a representation dated 04.04.2026, which remained pending

1. Whether the impugned transfer order was legally sustainable given the alleged violations of the minimum tenure prescribed in the Transfer Policy dated 19.12.2024

2. Whether the respondents are obligated to consider the applicant’s personal and medical hardships before implementing the transfer

The Tribunal applied the principle that transfer is an incidence of service and courts should generally not interfere unless the order is vitiated by mala fides or violates statutory provisions, as established in Union of India v. S.L. Abbas (1993)

Namrata Verma v. State of U.P. (2021)

personal hardships are matters for departmental consideration and must be addressed expeditiously per Rajendra Roy v. Union of India (1993)

if a transfer policy is violated, the appropriate remedy is for the employee to approach the authorities for an objective review per R.S. Chaudhary v. State of M.P. (2007)

The Tribunal analyzed the applicant’s claim that his transfer after only two years was a "flagrant violation" of the mandatory three-year tenure clause in the Transfer Policy

While acknowledging the respondents' argument that guidelines do not confer an enforceable right, the Tribunal emphasized the humanitarian aspect of the case, specifically the cancer treatment of the applicant’s dependent son in Delhi

The Tribunal reasoned that while it should not usually substitute its judgment for administrative decisions, the department is duty-bound to consider representations regarding personal hardship and policy deviations with "utmost objectivity"

By directing the respondents to decide the pending representation, the Tribunal bridged the gap between administrative discretion and the need for a fair application of internal policy guidelines

It directed the respondents to pass a reasoned and speaking order on the applicant's representation dated 04.04.2026

The Tribunal ordered that the transfer shall not be implemented, and the applicant shall continue at his current posting until the representation is decided

In the event of an adverse decision, the respondents were further directed not to implement the transfer for an additional fifteen days from the date the decision is communicated to the applicant