Pending transfer representation must be decided by reasoned order, with posting status quo maintained meanwhile.

The applicant, an Assistant Administrative Officer in the Military Engineering Services, was transferred from Garrison Engineer (West), Jabalpur, Madhya Pradesh, to Mamaura, Uttar Pradesh, by order dated 20 April 2026.

He contended that he had joined the Jabalpur office only on 10 July 2025 and had completed approximately one year there.

His name appeared at Serial No. 7 in the warning/surplus/deficiency list circulated on 9 February 2026.

Under paragraph 5.6 of the 2026 policy for adjustment of surplus/deficiency employees, he submitted a representation and furnished three station preferences—Mamaura, Lucknow, and Allahabad.

He alleged that two senior employees listed at Serial Nos. 4 and 5 had not furnished station preferences but were retained at the same station.

The applicant submitted a representation dated 30 April 2026 challenging the transfer, which remained pending.

He also stated that he had not been relieved from his existing post.

The respondents maintained that he had been posted to one of his preferred stations and that, under paragraph 5.4 of the policy, furnishing station preferences was not mandatory.

Whether the applicant’s pending representation against the transfer order dated 20 April 2026 was required to be considered and decided by the competent authority through a reasoned and speaking order.

Whether the applicant’s posting should remain undisturbed until the competent authority decided his representation.

The Tribunal applied the 2026 policy governing adjustment of surplus/deficiency employees.

Paragraph 5.6 contemplated the submission of representations and station preferences by employees included in the warning/surplus/deficiency list.

Paragraph 5.4, as relied upon by the respondents, provided that furnishing names of choice stations was not mandatory.

The Tribunal further applied the administrative-law principle that a pending representation concerning an employee’s transfer must be considered by the competent authority through a reasoned and speaking order.

The Tribunal did not finally adjudicate the validity of the transfer or determine whether the applicant was entitled to retention at Jabalpur.

It noted that the applicant’s representation dated 30 April 2026 was pending consideration and that the parties had advanced competing interpretations of paragraphs 5.4 and 5.6 of the 2026 policy.

Rather than substituting its own decision for that of the competent authority, the Tribunal directed the respondents to examine the representation and issue a reasoned and speaking order.

To preserve the subject matter of the dispute and prevent the transfer from being acted upon before the representation was decided, it ordered maintenance of status quo regarding the applicant’s posting.

Until such decision, status quo regarding the applicant’s posting was directed to be maintained.

The Tribunal therefore granted limited procedural relief without quashing the transfer order or finally deciding the applicant’s entitlement to remain at Jabalpur.