Transfer challenge must be decided by a reasoned order, with joining protected meanwhile.

The applicant, Raman Kumar, an Assistant General Manager posted in the Jammu and Kashmir Telecom Circle, challenged BSNL’s transfer order dated 9 May 2026 transferring him from the Jammu and Kashmir Circle to Kolkata Telecom District, and the consequential relieving order dated 2 September 2026.

He contended that the transfer violated Clause 11(k), Section-B of the BSNL Employees Transfer Policy, which ordinarily discourages inter-circle transfers after the age of 56 years and intra-circle transfers after the age of 57 years at the relevant level.

He was stated to be over 57 years and 11 months old and to have served at hard stations.

He also relied on the serious medical condition and dependency of his octogenarian mother, as well as the cancellation of another employee’s transfer on age-related grounds.

The respondents opposed interim relief, stating that the applicant had already been relieved and that a new incumbent had joined in his place.

1. Whether the applicant’s transfer from the Jammu and Kashmir Telecom Circle to Kolkata was contrary to Clause 11(k), Section-B of the BSNL Employees Transfer Policy, in view of his age and circumstances.

2. Whether interim protection should be granted against the transfer and relieving order when the applicant had already been relieved and the replacement had joined.

3. Whether the respondents should be directed to consider the Original Application as the applicant’s representation and decide it by a reasoned order.

The Tribunal applied Clause 11(k), Section-B of the BSNL Employees Transfer Policy, which provides that, up to the relevant STS level, transfers involving a change of station should ordinarily be avoided after 56 years in cases of inter-circle transfers and after 57 years in cases of intra-circle transfers.

The Tribunal also applied the procedural principle that an administrative representation must be considered by the competent authority through a reasoned and speaking order.

No statutory provision or judicial precedent was cited, and the Tribunal expressly refrained from adjudicating the merits of the transfer challenge.

The Tribunal noted the applicant’s reliance on the age-related transfer restriction, his mother’s medical condition, and the alleged comparable treatment of another employee.

However, since the applicant had already been relieved and the new incumbent had joined, the Tribunal did not grant a final determination on the validity of the transfer or enter into the merits.

Instead, accepting the applicant’s limited request, it considered that the dispute could be addressed administratively by treating the Original Application as his representation and requiring the competent BSNL authority to decide it through a reasoned and speaking order within a prescribed period.

Respondent No. 2, the Principal General Manager (Personnel), BSNL Corporate Office, was directed to treat a copy of the Original Application as the applicant’s representation and decide it by a reasoned and speaking order within three weeks from receipt of a certified copy of the Tribunal’s order.

The speaking order was to be communicated to the applicant.

Until such decision, no coercive action was to be taken to compel the applicant to join at his new place of posting.

No order was made as to costs.