Implementation of transfer order stayed pending disposal of administrative representation by the competent authority.

The applicant, an IRSME officer serving as Deputy Chief Mechanical Engineer at the Rail Wheel Plant (RWP), Bela, challenged a transfer order dated 09.03.2026.

The applicant had been posted to RWP Bela on 03.02.2025 following his "own request" based on spousal grounds, as his wife is employed in Patna.

Following the issuance of the new transfer order, the applicant submitted a representation to the authorities on 12.03.2026, which remained pending at the time of filing this Original Application (O.A.).

The applicant sought a stay on the transfer, citing administrative policy regarding spousal co-location and the proximity of his current station to his wife’s workplace.

1. Whether the Original Application is premature under the statutory requirement of exhaustion of remedies.

2. Whether the applicant is entitled to interim protection against a transfer order pending the disposal of his administrative representation on spousal grounds.

Section 20 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, which requires an applicant to exhaust all available departmental remedies before seeking judicial redress.

Administrative Principle of Exigency, which grants the state broad powers to transfer employees for operational needs.

Policy on Spousal Grounds, which directs departments to consider the placement of married government employees at the same station whenever possible.

The applicant contended that the transfer, issued only one year after his request-based posting, ignored the spousal grounds previously recognized by the department.

He argued that natural justice required his representation to be considered before he was uprooted.

The respondents vehemently opposed the prayer, arguing the O.A. was premature as the representation was only a week old.

They asserted that the transfer involved four other officers and was driven by administrative exigency, with no allegations of malafide or lack of competence in the issuing authority.

The Tribunal observed that while it would not interfere with the merits of a transfer at this stage, the interest of justice would be served by ensuring the representation is decided before the applicant is moved.

The Tribunal noted that staying the effect of the transfer specifically for the applicant would allow the competent authority to evaluate the spousal policy claims without causing irreparable prejudice to the officer's family circumstances in the interim.

The Tribunal held that until the representation is decided, the transfer order qua the applicant shall not be given effect.

It clarified that this order creates no equity in the applicant's favor and that the respondents retain full liberty to decide the representation based on administrative exigencies.

No order was made as to costs.