Mid-academic session transfers affecting children’s education must be avoided absent pressing urgency or necessity.

The applicant, a Social Security Officer (SSO) at SRO-Okhla, Delhi, challenged the transfer order dated 10.04.2026, which moved him to SRO-Marol, Maharashtra

The applicant joined the department in 1990 and was previously posted in Gujarat before moving to Delhi in 2013

his wife holds a non-transferable post in the Delhi Government and has significant medical complications

his daughter is entering Class 12th for the 2026-27 academic session

he has been assigned duties as an Enumerator for Census 2027, with Home Ministry directives advising against transfers for such staff until March 2027

The applicant submitted a representation on 10.04.2026, which remained pending at the time of the hearing

1. Whether the transfer order dated 10.04.2026 was in violation of the ESIC Transfer Policy 2024 and DoPT instructions regarding spouse postings and mid-academic session transfers

2. Whether the respondents are required to consider personal hardships and administrative exemptions (Census duty) before implementing a transfer

The Tribunal applied DoPT OMs dated 30.09.2009 and 14.10.2009, which mandate the posting of spouses at the same station where feasible

It relied on Union of India v. S.L. Abbas (1993) 4 SCC 357, which established that while transfer is an incidence of service, authorities must consider government guidelines

The court cited Director of School Education v. Karuppa Thevan (1994) Supp. 2 SCC 666, holding that mid-academic year transfers affecting children’s studies should be avoided unless there is pressing urgency

the principle from Rajendra Roy v. Union of India (1993) 1 SCC 148, stating that personal hardships are matters for departmental consideration

R.S. Chaudhary v. State of M.P. (2007) ILR MP 1329, which identifies representation to authorities as the proper remedy for policy violations

The Tribunal examined the applicant’s grievances against the backdrop of Clauses 7.4 and 12.6 of the Transfer Policy dated 19.12.2024

The court noted that the respondents' counsel conceded that the representation deserved sympathetic consideration given the wife’s non-transferable job and the daughter’s critical academic year

The Tribunal observed that the applicant’s assignment to Census 2027 duties further complicated the transfer, citing specific Ministry of Home Affairs communications (dated 11.03.2026 and 26.02.2026) that requested exemptions for such staff

Reasoning that the department is best suited to evaluate personal hardships and policy compliance, the Tribunal determined that the applicant should not be displaced until his pending representation was formally adjudicated through a reasoned order

It ordered the respondents to decide on the applicant’s representation dated 10.04.2026 by passing a reasoned and speaking order

The Tribunal directed that the transfer order shall not be implemented and the applicant shall continue at his original posting until the representation is decided

if the representation is rejected, the transfer shall not be implemented for an additional fifteen days from the date the decision is communicated to the applicant to allow for further legal remedy