Respondents must reconsider the transfer representation in light of the Committee’s recommendation and maintain status quo pending decision.

The applicant, a Sub-Divisional Engineer with BSNL, challenged his transfer order dated 9 May 2026.

His interim prayer to stay the transfer had earlier been rejected on 19 June 2026.

Subsequently, the respondents sought supporting documents concerning the applicant’s dependent father and his caregiving responsibilities.

The applicant submitted an undertaking and supporting material dated 24 June 2026.

A Committee constituted by the respondents to examine retention or cancellation of transfer cases on medical grounds recommended his retention in the Madhya Pradesh Circle until 31 March 2027 on account of medical exigencies.

Despite that recommendation, the respondents rejected his representation on 6 August 2026 and issued a relieving order on 31 August 2026.

The applicant therefore sought reconsideration of his case in light of the Committee’s recommendation and protection from coercive action pending such reconsideration.

Whether the respondents were required to reconsider the applicant’s request for retention in the Madhya Pradesh Circle in light of the Committee’s recommendation based on his medical and caregiving circumstances.

Whether the applicant was entitled to protection against coercive action, including implementation of the relieving order, pending a reasoned decision on his fresh representation.

The Tribunal did not expressly invoke any specific statutory provision or judicial precedent.

It applied the administrative-law principles of fair and reasoned consideration of an employee’s representation, particularly where a duly constituted departmental Committee has recommended retention on medical grounds.

The Tribunal also exercised its power to issue consequential interim protection by directing maintenance of status quo and restraining coercive action until the representation was decided.

The order reflects the principle that an administrative authority must meaningfully consider relevant material and provide a reasoned and speaking order.

The Tribunal found that the applicant’s case warranted reconsideration because the departmental Committee had specifically recommended his retention in the Madhya Pradesh Circle until 31 March 2027 owing to medical exigencies.

Although the respondents contended that the applicant’s father’s dependency had not been recorded in the service record and that the applicant had already been relieved, those circumstances did not eliminate the obligation to consider the Committee’s recommendation and the supporting material placed by the applicant.

The Tribunal therefore directed the applicant to submit a comprehensive fresh representation, which the respondents were required to decide through a reasoned and speaking order within a stipulated period.

To preserve the efficacy of that reconsideration, the Tribunal ordered maintenance of status quo and restrained further coercive action in the meantime.

The applicant was directed to file a comprehensive representation within two weeks of receiving the certified copy of the order.

If filed within time, the respondents were directed to consider it in light of the Committee’s recommendation and pass a reasoned and speaking order within a further period of two weeks, with a copy to be supplied to the applicant.

Until the representation was decided, the respondents were directed to maintain status quo and refrain from taking coercive action against the applicant.

No order as to costs was made.