Quashing of transfer order issued to employee at fag end of service amidst home personal hardships.

The applicant, an Inspector (Legal) in the CGST & Central Excise Department at Allahabad, was appointed in 1996 and has served continuously at his current station since July 2017

On May 12, 2026, the respondents issued a transfer order moving the applicant from Allahabad to Audit Kanpur

The applicant challenged this order on the grounds that he is due for superannuation in October 2026, has not completed the tenure prescribed by the Zonal Transfer Policy-2020, and faces severe family hardships, including aged parents suffering from cancer and spinal ailments

Despite a representation filed on May 13, 2026, no decision was taken by the authorities

Whether the transfer of a government servant at the "fag end" of his career (within months of retirement) is legally sustainable when it conflicts with established transfer policies and personal hardships.

Whether administrative exigency justifies a transfer when the department fails to demonstrate exceptional circumstances or decide on pending representations.

The Tribunal recognized that while transfer is an "incidence of service" and not a vested right, administrative authorities must act "fairly, reasonably, and in consonance with their own transfer policy"

It applied the principle that employees at the end of their service career (fag end) should generally not be disturbed absent compelling administrative necessity

The court also referred to the Zonal Transfer Policy-2020, specifically Paragraph-5, which mandates the consideration of compassionate grounds and medical conditions of dependents

The Tribunal found that the applicant had only a few months of service remaining before his retirement in October 2026

While the respondents argued that transfer is an administrative necessity and that policy guidelines are not absolute, the Tribunal noted that the department failed to demonstrate any "exceptional administrative exigency" that required moving the applicant at this specific juncture

Furthermore, the court emphasized that the respondents ignored the applicant's genuine hardships—specifically his 75-year-old mother’s cancer and 80-year-old father’s spinal issues—and failed to pass a reasoned order on his representation

The Tribunal concluded that the transfer was arbitrary and lacked the fairness required by law when dealing with an employee nearing superannuation

The Tribunal allowed the Original Application and quashed the impugned transfer order dated May 12, 2026, as it related to the applicant

The respondents were directed to permit the applicant to continue at his current place of posting until his superannuation. No costs were ordered.