Mechanical reconsideration of transfer representation without passing a reasoned speaking order warrants judicial interference.

The applicant, an Assistant Director (Ad-hoc) in the ESIC, was transferred from ESIC Hospital, Rudrapur (Uttarakhand) to the Regional Office, Tamil Nadu, via an order dated 28.03.2025

He challenged this on grounds of personal hardship (caring for his elderly, post-surgical parents), violation of Clause 4.3 of the ESIC Transfer Policy 2024 (non-completion of 10-year station tenure), and non-communication of the circular inviting posting options

In a previous round of litigation (O.A. No. 1447/2025), the Tribunal directed the respondents to decide his representation via a reasoned order while keeping the transfer in abeyance

The National Litigation Committee (NLC) rejected his representation on 09.07.2025, leading to a relieving order on 17.07.2025

The applicant alleged that the NLC decision was mechanical and the respondents failed to comply with the Tribunal's directive for a personal hearing and a speaking order

1. Whether the transfer order dated 28.03.2025 and the subsequent relieving order were passed in violation of the ESIC Transfer Policy 2024 and the principles of natural justice.

2. Whether the respondents complied with the Tribunal’s specific directions dated 13.10.2025 to grant a personal hearing and pass a reasoned and speaking order addressing all grievances.

while transfer is an incident of service, it must be conducted within the framework of the established policy and without arbitrariness.

Union of India v. S. L. Abbas (1993) 4 SCC 357, which holds that authorities must consider representations regarding transfer in light of administrative exigencies and guidelines

State of U.P. v. Gobardhan Lal (2004) 11 SCC 402, establishing that judicial interference is warranted if a transfer is vitiated by mala fides or violation of statutory provisions

administrative law requirement for a "reasoned and speaking order" when a quasi-judicial or administrative body decides an employee's grievance under court directions

The Tribunal found that the respondents acted in a "clandestine" and "mechanical" manner

Despite a specific order on 13.10.2025 to grant a personal hearing and pass a reasoned order, the respondents selectively picked only a few points from the applicant's representation to prepare an "Action Taken Report" (ATR) for the NLC, ignoring substantive grievances regarding station tenure and specific choice postings

The Tribunal noted that the respondents failed to produce the final minutes of the NLC meeting held after the personal hearing, nor did they issue a fresh speaking order as mandated

while the respondents justified the transfer on manpower shortages in Tamil Nadu, they failed to demonstrate any objective criterion (such as seniority or juniority) used to select the applicant from among 105 officers, rendering the choice arbitrary

The court concluded that the respondents’ failure to meaningfully apply their mind to the applicant’s medical and humanitarian grounds constituted a breach of the rule of law

The court held that the respondents' actions were "bereft of application of mind" and failed to comply with previous judicial directions

The respondents were directed to: (i) consider posting the applicant to one of the six options provided in his representation within three weeks; and (ii) release his pending pay and allowances within the same period

the court reprimanded the respondents for their "unprofessional" handling of the matter and directed them to ensure a transparent grievance mechanism for employees