Mechanical rejection of transfer representations without considering medical and family circumstances is unsustainable.

The applicant, a Social Security Officer in ESIC, was transferred from Directorate (Medical), Delhi to SRO Marol, Maharashtra by Office Order dated 11 March 2024.

In OA No. 2491/2024, the Tribunal directed the respondents to consider the applicants’ individual representations and pass reasoned and speaking orders after granting an opportunity of hearing.

The applicant submitted a representation asserting that she was a widow and single parent of an unmarried daughter and that she suffered from severe Obstructive Sleep Apnea (OSA), requiring use of a CPAP machine.

Pursuant to the respondents’ directions, she underwent a medical examination at ESIC Model Hospital, Basaidarapur, on 25 January 2025, where severe OSA was diagnosed.

The respondents rejected her representation by speaking order dated 27 August 2026, stating, inter alia, that the single-parent exemption did not apply because her daughter was not a minor and that she was not entitled to medical exemption under the applicable guidelines and Transfer Committee recommendations.

She was thereafter relieved by order dated 31 August 2026.

1. Whether the respondents’ speaking order dated 27 August 2026 reflected meaningful and complete consideration of the applicant’s medical condition and subsequent medical records?

2. Whether the respondents properly considered the applicant’s status as a widow and single parent with an adult unmarried daughter, rather than rejecting the claim solely because the daughter was not a minor?

3. Whether the consequential relieving order dated 31 August 2026 was sustainable when the underlying speaking order was found deficient?

4. Whether the applicant had an enforceable right to be retained or posted at one of her preferred stations, including Delhi-NCR?

The Tribunal applied the general principle governing transfers that an employee has no absolute right to remain posted at, or be transferred to, a particular station; transfer is ordinarily an administrative matter subject to the applicable policy, public interest, administrative requirements, vacancy, and feasibility.

However, where a competent authority is directed to reconsider an employee’s individual grievance, the consideration must be genuine, meaningful, complete, and supported by a reasoned and speaking order.

The Tribunal also considered the applicable transfer policy concerning compassionate grounds and single-parent exemptions, as well as Annexure-I to the CHS Office Memorandum dated 10 December 2021 concerning medical grounds.

The Tribunal held that the issue was not whether the applicant possessed an absolute right to a particular place of posting, but whether her representation had been properly considered.

Although the applicant had not initially submitted all medical records, the respondents themselves had directed her to undergo a fresh medical examination.

She was subsequently diagnosed with severe OSA, and the relevant medical history was available within the ESIC system.

The speaking order did not demonstrate that this subsequent medical condition and the available records had been meaningfully considered.

Similarly, the applicant’s family circumstances could not be disposed of merely by stating that her daughter was an adult.

Her status as a widow and single parent, together with the asserted responsibility for an unmarried daughter of marriageable age, required independent and substantive consideration.

Since the speaking order suffered from non-application of mind and incomplete consideration, the consequential relieving order also could not stand.

The matter was remanded to the competent authority for fresh consideration of the applicant’s medical condition and available medical records, her family circumstances as a widow and single parent with an adult unmarried daughter, and her preferred stations, including Delhi-NCR, subject to administrative requirements, vacancy, and the applicable policy.

The competent authority was directed to pass a fresh, reasoned, and speaking order within three months from receipt of the certified copy of the Tribunal’s order.

The Tribunal clarified that it had expressed no opinion on the applicant’s ultimate entitlement to any particular place of posting; the Original Application and pending Miscellaneous Application were disposed of without costs.