Judicial consistency mandates granting identical interim relief to employees challenging the same administrative transfer order.

The Applicant, a Joint Director serving at the ESIC Headquarters in New Delhi, challenged an Office Order dated 02.04.2026 that transferred him to ESIC H&MC, PGIMSR Rajajinagar

The Applicant sought a stay on the transfer and requested consideration for any of the 12 vacant positions within the Delhi-NCR region

He contended that his case was identical to a previously decided matter, OA No. 1255/2026 (decided on 07.04.2026), where a Coordinate Bench of the same Tribunal granted relief to another employee affected by the same transfer order

1. Whether the Applicant is entitled to parity in relief based on the decision rendered in a similar case involving the same transfer order

2. Whether the principles of judicial prudence and consistency require the Tribunal to grant a stay on the transfer order pending the disposal of an administrative representation

The Tribunal exercised its jurisdiction under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985

It primarily applied the principle of judicial consistency and prudence, which mandates that a Bench should not take a divergent view from a Coordinate Bench when the facts and the impugned order are identical

The Tribunal noted that the Applicant was transferred under the same composite order dated 02.04.2026 as the applicant in OA No. 1255/2026

It observed that the respondents failed to provide any distinguishing features that would set the current applicant apart from the previous case

Consequently, the Tribunal determined that the directions issued in the earlier judgment—which required the administration to decide on the employee's representation before enforcing the transfer—should apply mutatis mutandis to the present case to maintain legal uniformity

The Tribunal emphasized that consistency is essential in judicial decision-making when dealing with identical facts

The Court ordered the respondents to: (i) pass a reasoned and speaking order on the Applicant’s pending representation; (ii) allow the Applicant to continue at his current posting in New Delhi until the representation is decided; and (iii) in the event of an adverse decision, stay the implementation of the transfer for an additional fifteen days from the date of communication of the decision to allow the Applicant further legal remedy