Transfer authorities must consider policy-based posting preferences and provide rational reasons for rejecting them.

The applicant, a Social Security Assistant appointed in the EPFO on 12 June 2009 and posted at New Delhi, applied for permanent inter-State transfer to Uttar Pradesh under the EPFO Group-C Transfer Policy dated 30 January 2025, citing the medical needs of his children and parents.

The Policy permitted an employee to furnish five preferred duty offices under Clause 1.10, while providing that an employee transferred inter-State would lose seniority and be placed at the bottom of the State Seniority List, with pay protection.

The applicant’s transfer from Delhi to Uttar Pradesh was accepted on 27 March 2025. Upon reporting at the Zonal Office, Kanpur, on 11 April 2025, he submitted the following preferences: Kanpur, Varanasi, Bareilly, Gorakhpur and Allahabad.

Nevertheless, by order dated 23 April 2025, he was posted to the Regional Office, Meerut. He alleged that junior employees had been posted at Kanpur in accordance with their preferences, whereas none of his preferred offices had been allotted to him.

The applicant submitted representations on 24 April 2025 and 3 November 2025 and also sought information under the RTI Act regarding vacancies, sanctioned strength and consideration of his preferences.

The respondents contended that the posting at Meerut was made in the interest of administration, that the applicant had no enforceable right to a particular station, and that his grievance had been referred to the Group-C Transfer Committee, whose recommendations were pending.

The applicant therefore approached the Tribunal under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985.

Whether the respondents were justified in allotting the applicant to Regional Office, Meerut, without adequately considering the five preferences furnished by him under Clause 1.10 of the Transfer Policy dated 30 January 2025.

Whether the applicant had an absolute or enforceable right to be posted at Kanpur or at any other preferred station.

Whether the applicant’s grievance was required to be reconsidered by the Group-C Transfer Committee through a reasoned and speaking order.

The Tribunal applied Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, under which an aggrieved government employee may approach the Central Administrative Tribunal.

It applied Clause 1.10 of the EPFO Group-C Transfer Policy dated 30 January 2025, which requires the administration to receive and consider an employee’s choice of five duty offices, subject to vacancy position and administrative exigencies.

The Tribunal reaffirmed the principle that transfer is ordinarily an incident of service and that an employee has no absolute right to demand posting at a particular station; however, administrative discretion must be exercised reasonably, fairly and consistently with the applicable transfer policy.

Where a stated preference is rejected, the competent authority must have a rational and discernible basis for doing so, including consideration of vacancies, administrative requirements and relevant allegations of differential treatment.

The Tribunal held that Clause 1.10 was not a meaningless formality. Since the applicant had admittedly furnished five preferences in the prescribed context, the respondents were required to consider them before making the final allotment.

Although the applicant could not claim Kanpur or any other station as an absolute right, the respondents could not disregard his preferences merely by referring generally to “the interest of administration” without disclosing the relevant vacancy position, administrative circumstances or reasons for allotting Meerut.

The Tribunal also considered that the applicant had accepted the significant consequence of loss of seniority upon inter-State transfer and was therefore entitled to have his posting considered under the mechanism prescribed by the Policy.

The allegation that junior employees had received preferred postings did not automatically establish discrimination, but it required objective examination to determine whether the cases were similarly situated and whether any rational basis existed for different treatment.

Since the applicant’s grievance was already pending before the Group-C Transfer Committee and no final administrative decision had been made, the Tribunal declined to substitute its own view or direct posting at Kanpur.

The Group-C Transfer Committee/competent authority was directed to reconsider the applicant’s grievance in light of Clause 1.10 of the Transfer Policy and specifically examine his five preferences, vacancy position, administrative requirements, reasons for allotting Meerut, loss of seniority and allegation concerning the posting of junior employees.

A reasoned and speaking order was to be passed within two months of receipt of a certified copy of the judgment and communicated to the applicant forthwith.

The Tribunal clarified that it had expressed no opinion on the merits of the applicant’s claim to Kanpur or any other particular Regional Office.

There was no order as to costs.