Interim protection from transfer granted to employee nearing superannuation pending consideration of representation on health grounds.

The applicant, Shashi Bala, is a Senior Staff Nurse serving in the Health and Medical Education Department of Jammu and Kashmir.

On 18.04.2026, she was transferred from Govt. Medical College (GMC) Udhampur to Govt. Hospital Gandhi Nagar, Jammu.

via Govt. Order No. 422-JK(HME) of 2026 dated 15.05.2026, the prior transfer was cancelled, and she was directed to report back to GMC Udhampur.

she was relieved from the Jammu hospital on 18.05.2026.

The applicant challenged these orders, citing she has less than two years left before superannuation and suffers from health issues.

1. Whether the impugned orders cancelling the applicant's transfer and directing her to join at GMC Udhampur were arbitrary and lacked application of mind.

2. Whether the applicant is entitled to remain at her current place of posting based on her proximity to retirement and health grounds.

The court's jurisdiction was invoked under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985.

The court relied on the administrative principle that while transfer is an exigency of service, the competent authority must consider personal hardships, proximity to retirement (fag end of service), and health conditions when reviewing representations against transfer orders.

The Tribunal did not adjudicate the merits of the transfer policy but focused on the procedural fairness of the administrative action. It noted that the applicant is 57 years old and nearing superannuation with less than two years of service remaining.

The court reasoned that these factors, combined with her health concerns, necessitated a "sympathetic and reasoned" review by the respondents.

By directing the respondents to treat the Original Application as a formal representation, the Tribunal ensured that the executive branch exercises its discretion to evaluate if the transfer caused undue hardship.

To prevent irreparable injury during this review, the court applied the principle of status quo, staying any coercive action until a speaking order is passed.

It directed the respondents to treat the O.A. as a representation and pass a reasoned and speaking order within four weeks.

no coercive action shall be taken against the applicant, and she shall not be forced to join GMC Udhampur until the final decision is reached.

All rival claims remain open for consideration by the competent authority based on administrative exigencies. No order as to costs was made.