Facts
The applicant, an Assistant Director at the Employee State Insurance Corporation (ESIC) Headquarters in New Delhi since May 2023, challenged a transfer order dated March 25, 2026
Source reference: p.2, para. 2; p.3, para. 4The order, issued on the recommendation of a Transfer Committee, moved the applicant to the Regional Office in Himachal Pradesh in the "public interest"
Source reference: p.3, para. 2The applicant contended that the transfer violated Para 7.6 and Para 4.1 of the Transfer Policy dated December 19, 2024, as he had served only two years and ten months—less than the prescribed three-year minimum tenure
Source reference: p.3, para. 4He further alleged discrimination and malafides, noting that several senior officers who had completed over nine years in Delhi were not transferred
Source reference: p.4, para. 5Issues
1. Whether the transfer order is liable to be quashed for violating executive transfer guidelines regarding minimum tenure
Source reference: p.5, para. 72. Whether the transfer order was vitiated by malafides or administrative discrimination
Source reference: p.7, para. 12Law Applied
The court followed the established principle that transfer is an incident of service and a government servant has no vested right to remain at a specific post
Source reference: p.6, para. 9, citing Rajendra Singh v. State of UPRelying on Union of India v. S.L. Abbas, the court held that executive transfer instructions are mere guidelines without statutory force and do not confer legally enforceable rights
Source reference: p.5-6, para. 8Judicial review is limited to cases involving violation of statutory rules, malafides, or lack of jurisdiction
Source reference: p.5, para. 7Furthermore, a plea of malafides requires the heavy burden of proof and the personal impleadment of the individual against whom the allegation is made
Source reference: p.11, para. 21, citing Bhagwat Singh Verma v. State of M.P.Reasoning
The Tribunal found that the applicant holds a post with All India transfer liability
Source reference: p.8, para. 14It reasoned that since the transfer was recommended by a Transfer Committee and issued by a competent authority in the "public interest," there was no violation of statutory rules
Source reference: p.8, para. 15The court rejected the argument regarding the three-year tenure, stating that guidelines are not mandatory statutes and the administration must be allowed to function according to exigencies
Source reference: p.8, para. 15Regarding the allegations of malafides and discrimination, the Tribunal noted that the applicant failed to implead any specific officer in their personal capacity, rendering the plea unsustainable
Source reference: p.9, para. 19; p.11, para. 21The court emphasized that it cannot sit as an appellate authority over administrative decisions concerning who should be posted where
Source reference: p.6, para. 8Holding
The Tribunal dismissed the Original Application (O.A.) in limine at the admission stage, holding that the applicant failed to establish any infringement of legal rights or statutory violations
The court held that the transfer was a valid exercise of administrative power in the public interest and did not affect the applicant's service conditions
Source reference: p.12, para. 23All pending Miscellaneous Applications were disposed of accordingly
Source reference: p.12, para. 25Original Court PDF
JIV NATH JHAvsM/O LABOUR AND EMPLOYMENT
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in