Transfer in mid-academic year or violating internal policy warrants administrative reconsideration while staying implementation until disposal of representations.

The applicants are Social Security Officers (SSOs) working at ESIC Super Specialty Hospital and ESIC Medical College Hospital in Sanathnagar, Hyderabad

On April 10, 2026, the Employees’ State Insurance Corporation (ESIC) issued Annual General Transfer (AGT) Order No. 54/2026, transferring the applicants to various locations outside Hyderabad, including Hubli, Gulbarga, Vijayawada, and Chennai

The applicants challenged these orders on grounds of personal hardship, including medical issues, children’s education, and the fact that their spouses are also employed in government service at the same station (Hyderabad)

The applicants submitted individual representations to the Director General (Establishment), ESIC, which remained pending at the time of filing these Original Applications (OAs)

1. Whether the impugned transfer orders should be stayed or set aside pending the consideration of the applicants' representations regarding personal hardships and spouse-posting policy

2. Whether the transfer orders violated the Department’s AGT Policy 2024 and relevant DoP guidelines concerning the posting of husband and wife at the same station

The Tribunal recognized that transfer is an incidence of service and judicial interference is limited unless there is mala fide or violation of statutory provisions, as per Namrata Verma v. State of U.P. (2021) and Union of India v. S.L. Abbas (1993)

Personal difficulties are matters for departmental consideration as held in Rajendra Roy v. Union of India (1993)

Director of School Education v. Karuppa Thevan (1994) establishes that transfers during the midst of an academic year should generally be avoided

The court also applied the DoP guidelines and the ESIC AGT Policy 2024 (Clauses 7.4 and 12.6) regarding spouse postings and hardship cases

The Tribunal observed that the grievances raised—specifically spouse postings and children's education—were similar to those addressed by the Principal Bench of the CAT in recent orders (e.g., OA No. 1279/2026)

While acknowledging the employer's prerogative to transfer employees for administrative requirements, the Tribunal noted that the respondents are obligated to objectively evaluate personal hardships when a transfer policy or administrative guideline is invoked

By referencing the spouse-posting details of each applicant (e.g., spouses working in the CAT, Electricity Dept, CBDT, etc.), the Tribunal found it equitable to grant interim protection so that the administrative authorities could first decide on the pending representations as per the spirit of judicial consistency

It directed the respondents to (i) pass reasoned and speaking orders on the applicants’ pending representations; (ii) permit the applicants to continue at their current place of posting in Hyderabad until the representations are decided and communicated; and (iii) if the decisions are adverse, grant a 15-day stay on the transfer orders from the date of communication to allow the applicants to seek further legal remedy