Mandatory Consideration of Spouse Posting Policy and DoP&T Guidelines Before Implementing Administrative Transfer Orders

The applicant, a Junior Engineer (Civil) in the Military Engineer Services (MES) currently posted in Delhi (MES Id No:- MES-3178l8), challenged a transfer order dated 10.12.2025 that moved him from Delhi to Sirsa

The applicant filed a representation on 15.12.2025 seeking retention in Delhi on "spouse grounds," noting his wife is an employee of the MCD in Delhi and cannot be transferred

He further challenged Para 5(h) of the New Transfer Guidelines dated 20.05.2025 as discriminatory

Despite the representation, no decision was communicated, prompting this Original Application

1. Whether the respondents are mandated to consider and decide upon an employee's representation against a transfer order based on spouse posting and childcare grounds before implementing the transfer

2. Whether the impugned transfer order and specific clauses of the transfer policy dated 20.05.2025 are arbitrary or illegal

The Tribunal relied on the Department of Personnel and Training (DoPT) guidelines, specifically the O.M. dated 13.09.2009, which mandates that the government should strive to post spouses at the same station

It further referenced the department's own transfer policy guidelines (Clause ‘h’), which require the competent authority to remain sensitive to cases involving working spouses

The court upheld the principle of "administrative exigency" as a justification for transfers, but balanced it against the procedural right of the employee to have a representation considered via a "reasoned and speaking order"

The Tribunal observed that while the respondents justified the transfer on administrative grounds, they admitted that the applicant's representation remained pending and was "under consideration"

The court examined the applicant's specific grievances—namely, the inability of the spouse (an MCD employee) to move out of Delhi and the necessity of both parents' presence for their two-year-old child

The Tribunal reasoned that the ends of justice required the respondents to evaluate these personal circumstances against the availability of non-sensitive posts in Delhi, as suggested by the applicant

Instead of quashing the policy or the order outright, the Tribunal applied the law by directing the executive to perform its duty of fair consideration under the existing DoPT framework

The respondents were ordered to consider the DoPT O.M. dated 13.09.2009 and the availability of posts in Delhi. Critically, the Tribunal ordered that "no coercive steps" shall be taken against the applicant and he shall be permitted to continue at his present Delhi posting until the representation is decided

The applicant was granted an additional week after the speaking order to seek further legal remedies if still aggrieved