Mechanical rejection of transfer representations without reasoned, speaking orders addressing individual hardships is unsustainable.

The applicant, a Group 'A' Examiner of Patents and Designs, challenged a transfer order dated 09.01.2026, which moved him from Delhi to Mumbai

The applicant sought relief on the grounds that his father is suffering from Stage-III-B Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer and requires specialized medical care and supervision in Delhi

He further alleged that the transfer violated the "Revised Transfer Policy" dated 04.07.2025, specifically the principle of rotational transfer based on the descending order of tenure

After the applicant submitted a representation on 13.01.2026, the respondents issued a common rejection order for multiple employees on 08.04.2026

The applicant was subsequently relieved from his Delhi posting on 13.04.2026 while the matter was pending

1. Whether the impugned transfer and relieving orders were arbitrary and in violation of the Revised Transfer Policy and DoP&T guidelines

2. Whether the respondents' rejection of the applicant’s representation through a common, non-speaking order was legally sustainable

The Tribunal examined Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunal Act, 1985

It considered the well-settled principle that transfer is an incident of service and courts should generally not interfere unless there is a violation of statutory rules or mala fides, as held in Mrs. Shilpi Bose v. State of Bihar

Union of India v. S.L. Abbas

It further noted the principle from S.C. Saxena v. Union of India that an employee must first join the new post before ventilating grievances

administrative authorities must consider individual hardships and pass "reasoned and speaking orders" when dealing with representations

The Tribunal acknowledged the administration's prerogative to transfer employees for rationalization and efficiency

it found that the respondents' common rejection order dated 08.04.2026 was "mechanical" and failed to address the specific, compelling medical grounds raised by the applicant

The Tribunal observed that while guidelines do not confer an indefeasible right, authorities are expected to deal with senior officers’ difficulties in a sensitive manner to maintain morale

It held that the failure to record specific reasons for rejecting the applicant's medical plea regarding his father's cancer treatment rendered the administrative action flawed

the Tribunal determined that the applicant deserved a fresh, individual consideration of his circumstances rather than a blanket rejection

It directed the respondents to consider the applicant’s representation afresh and pass a "reasoned and speaking order" within 15 days of receiving the judgment

The Tribunal further ordered that the applicant be allowed to remain at his present posting in Delhi until the fresh order is passed

The OA was disposed of at the admission stage