The employee must not be relieved until the transfer representation is decided after a personal hearing.

The applicant, a Postman at Nandyal Head Office and elected Divisional Secretary of a recognised service association, challenged orders dated 21 and 22 September 2026 transferring him to Srisailam and arranging a reciprocal posting.

He contended that the transfer was complaint-based and punitive, contrary to applicable transfer guidelines and his claimed protection as an association office-bearer; he also relied on his child’s Class X examinations and stated that he had not been relieved because he was on medical leave.

The respondents submitted that the transfer arose from administrative exigencies and vacancies, and sought time to respond.

The applicant’s representation dated 29 September 2026 remained pending.

1. Whether the applicant was entitled to interim protection from being relieved while his representation against the transfer remained pending.

2. Whether the Tribunal should determine the legality of the transfer at the admission stage, or direct the competent authority to consider the applicant’s grounds and representation first.

The Tribunal noted the general principle that transfer is an incidence of service and that an employee has no right to a particular posting, as urged by the respondents.

It also considered the applicant’s reliance on the 17 January 2019 transfer guidelines, which exempt Postmen and certain other staff from rotational transfer except on administrative grounds, and the 3 June 2020 clarification concerning posting protection for specified office-bearers of recognised service associations.

Without deciding the applicability or effect of those provisions, the Tribunal directed that the representation be decided by a reasoned and speaking order, following the principles of natural justice and affording the applicant a personal hearing.

The applicant raised substantial grounds concerning the alleged complaint-based nature of the transfer, the transfer guidelines, his association office, and personal circumstances.

The respondents maintained that the transfer was based on administrative exigencies.

Because the representation was still pending and the applicant had not been relieved, the Tribunal considered it appropriate to require the competent authority to assess the grounds and representation holistically before taking further action.

It expressly declined to enter into the merits of the transfer challenge.

The competent authority was directed to decide the applicant’s representation dated 29 September 2026 by a reasoned and speaking order, uninfluenced by the impugned transfer orders, within 30 days of receiving a certified copy of the order.

The applicant was not to be relieved or otherwise subjected to adverse action until the representation was decided, and he was to be given a personal hearing.

The Tribunal made no determination on the merits and made no order as to costs.