Spouse-based posting preference does not create an enforceable right to continued retention at a station.

The applicant, an SSO in ESIC, had served in Delhi since joining the Corporation in 2008. In 2024, despite his wife being a Government teacher in Delhi and his elderly parents requiring care, he was retained within Delhi/NCR on compassionate and spouse-related grounds and transferred to Director Medical (Delhi), where he joined on 06.05.2024.

By Office Order dated 10.04.2026, he was transferred to SRO Durgapur. He challenged the transfer and submitted representations seeking retention in Delhi/NCR or, alternatively, posting within 300 kilometres of Delhi/NCR.

Pursuant to the Tribunal’s directions in O.A. No. 1417/2026, the respondents passed a speaking order dated 16.06.2026 rejecting his representation.

The applicant contended that the transfer violated the ESIC Transfer Policy, ignored his spouse, children and aged parents, lacked adequate reasons, and discriminated against similarly situated employees.

The respondents maintained that the applicant had completed nearly fifteen years at the Delhi/NCR station, exceeding the policy’s maximum station tenure of ten years, had submitted no station preferences during the 2026 transfer exercise, and had already received a spouse-based concession.

Whether the applicant’s earlier retention in Delhi/NCR on spouse-related grounds created an enforceable right to continued posting in or around Delhi/NCR

Whether the transfer to SRO Durgapur was vitiated by illegality, mala fides, arbitrariness or breach of the ESIC Transfer Policy dated 18.12.2024

Whether the order dated 16.06.2026 rejecting the applicant’s representation was mechanical, non-speaking and passed without application of mind

Whether the applicant established hostile discrimination in comparison with other officers allegedly retained or transferred within Delhi/NCR

Transfer is an incident of service, and an employee holding a transferable post has no vested or fundamental right to remain at, or seek posting to, a station of choice; judicial interference is justified only where the transfer is mala fide, contrary to statutory rules, or otherwise legally arbitrary, as recognised in Rajendra Roy v. Union of India, (1993) 1 SCC 148.

Spouse-posting guidelines require consideration of the possibility of posting spouses at the same station, but do not create an enforceable right where administrative requirements make such posting infeasible, following Bank of India v. Jagjit Singh Mehta, (1992) 1 SCC 306.

Under the ESIC Transfer Policy dated 18.12.2024, organisational interest receives overriding consideration; Delhi and its adjacent areas constitute one station; tenure is calculated by continuous stay at the station irrespective of the post or office; and the maximum tenure is ten years at a station and five years at an office.

Article 14 embodies positive equality and does not permit a claim based on alleged “negative equality”.

An employee is ordinarily expected to comply with a transfer order and pursue personal difficulties through representation, as held in S.C. Saxena v. Union of India, (2006) 9 SCC 583.

The Tribunal held that the applicant’s earlier spouse-based retention in Delhi/NCR was a concession under the then-applicable policy and did not create a perpetual entitlement to remain there.

Although the applicant’s wife was employed in Delhi and his family circumstances warranted consideration, such considerations remained subordinate to administrative feasibility and organisational requirements.

The applicant had remained in the Delhi/NCR station for nearly fifteen years, substantially exceeding the ten-year maximum prescribed by Clauses 3.5, 3.7 and 4.3 of the 2024 Policy; the minimum tenure protection could not be invoked by an employee who had already exceeded the maximum tenure.

He had also failed to submit any station choice during the 2026 online transfer exercise, leaving the Transfer Committee to recommend transfer on administrative grounds.

The order dated 16.06.2026 was found to have considered the applicant’s tenure, prior concession and administrative requirements and was therefore not mechanical or non-speaking.

The discrimination claim failed because the applicant did not establish that the other officers were similarly situated in respect of tenure, station choices and other relevant circumstances; in any event, Article 14 does not support a claim of negative equality.

The absence of the grievance module used in 2024, the delayed issuance of the transfer order and its subsequent communication did not invalidate the transfer, particularly since the applicant had submitted representations that were considered.

The applicant was directed to report at SRO Durgapur within the stipulated period.

However, without conferring any enforceable right, the respondents were directed to consider his request for posting at a location within a reasonable distance of Delhi/NCR if vacancies arose and administrative feasibility permitted, in accordance with the Transfer Policy and applicable DoPT instructions.

There was no order as to costs, and pending miscellaneous applications were disposed of.