Grievance Committee must address specific contentions in reasoned orders; remand for reconsideration.

The applicant, Dr. Jaikam Hassan, an Insurance Medical Officer in ESIC, challenged an impugned order dated March 1, 2024, and a subsequent order dated February 24, 2026, related to his transfer

In a previous round of litigation, the Tribunal had directed the respondents to consider and dispose of the applicant's representation dated March 4, 2024, in accordance with ESIC's Transfer Policy and DoPT OMs, within 45 days

An interim order maintaining the status quo was to remain in operation for ten days after the issuance of the reasoned order

The applicant's detailed representation highlighted several personal hardships, including his pregnant wife's medical complications, the recent loss of their child, his wife's employment as an Assistant Professor in Faridabad, his four transfers within seven years, and his parents' chronic health issues

The Grievance Committee, however, rejected his representation with the observation: "Tenure completed at location. No choice submitted. Given posting at same station, hence not considered"

The impugned order of February 24, 2026, conveying this decision, did not address the specific grounds raised in his representation

Whether the impugned order dated February 24, 2026, rejecting the applicant's representation, was arbitrary and failed to comply with the directions of the Tribunal's previous judgment

Whether the Grievance Redressal Committee's decision adequately considered the specific grounds of hardship raised by the applicant in his representation dated March 4, 2024

The Tribunal implicitly applied the principles of natural justice, requiring a reasoned and speaking order when a representation is considered

It also referred to the ESIC Transfer Policy and DoPT OMs dated November 24, 2022, and September 30, 2009, regarding transfers and posting of spouses at the same station

The court found that the Grievance Committee's rejection order was perfunctory, merely stating that the applicant's "Tenure completed at location. No choice submitted. Given posting at same station, hence not considered"

Crucially, the impugned order dated February 24, 2026, lacked any specific consideration of the detailed and serious personal grounds raised by the applicant in his representation dated March 4, 2024, such as his wife's pregnancy complications, the loss of their child, his wife's employment in the same city, his frequent transfers, and his parents' health issues

The Tribunal noted that a similar perfunctory rejection had occurred in the prior litigation

This lack of engagement demonstrated a failure to pass a reasoned and speaking order as previously directed by the Tribunal, thereby making the decision arbitrary and a violation of due process

It remanded the matter to the Grievance Redressal Committee for fresh consideration of the applicant's representation dated March 4, 2024

The Committee was directed to pass a reasoned and speaking order in accordance with the applicable transfer policy and relevant DOP&T instructions within 15 days

The applicant was granted liberty to submit additional medical and other relevant documents

Until a fresh decision is taken, the status quo was ordered to be maintained

The O.A. was disposed of with no costs