Joining the transferred post is a condition precedent for seeking judicial relief against alleged transfer policy violations.

The applicant, a Deputy Manager (Telecom) at the BSNL Corporate Office in New Delhi, was transferred to the Kerala Circle vide an order dated 02.05.2025

This transfer occurred only six months after his previous posting to the Corporate Office on 04.11.2024

The applicant initially challenged this via O.A. No. 1926/2025, where the Tribunal directed the respondents to pass a reasoned order

The respondents subsequently issued a speaking order on 19.06.2025, rejecting his representation on the grounds of administrative exigencies and a shortage of staff in the Kerala Circle following the VRS-2019 restructuring

The applicant challenged the speaking order, alleging a violation of the BSNL Transfer Policy's minimum three-year tenure norm

Despite the lack of interim relief from the Tribunal, the applicant did not join the transferred post in Kerala

1. Whether the transfer order dated 02.05.2025 was arbitrary and in violation of the BSNL Transfer Policy regarding minimum tenure

2. Whether the applicant’s failure to join the transferred post despite no interim protection disentitles him to relief

The court applied Clause 11.2 of the BSNL Transfer Policy, which prescribes a minimum tenure of three years at a location to avoid hardship

Union of India v. S.L. Abbas, establishing that transfer is an incidence of service and within the competent authority's domain

B. Varadha Rao v. State of Karnataka, which mandates that transfers must be in the public interest and not arbitrary

The court applied the principle from S.C. Saxena v. Union of India and The Tamil Nadu Agricultural University & Anr. v. R. Agila, holding that a government servant must join the transferred post first before pursuing legal remedies and cannot remain absent while challenging the order

The Tribunal observed that while transfer is a necessary administrative function, BSNL failed to consistently adhere to its own policy, specifically the three-year tenure norm, without providing a satisfactory explanation for the deviation in the applicant's case

The court noted that similarly situated officers appeared to have been treated differently, suggesting an element of arbitrariness in policy implementation

However, the court balanced this against the applicant's conduct, noting he remained absent from duty without interim protection

Applying R. Agila, the Tribunal reasoned that administrative exigencies take precedence and an employee cannot unilaterally refuse to join a post

Consequently, while the Tribunal found the respondents' reasoning in the speaking order insufficient, it held that the applicant must comply with the transfer order before his grievances could be further reviewed

It directed the respondents to consider the points raised by the applicant and pass a fresh reasoned and speaking order in accordance with the law

The Tribunal directed the applicant to comply with the transfer order dated 02.05.2025 and join the Kerala Circle forthwith, noting that failure to do so may entail legal consequences

No order as to costs was made