Transfer is an incident of service; administrative guidelines do not confer enforceable rights absent mala fides or statutory violations.

The applicant, a 55-year-old Social Security Officer (SSO) at ESIC HQ, New Delhi, challenged the transfer order dated 10.04.2026, which relocated her to Ahmedabad, Gujarat

She contended that the transfer violated Clause B(2)(vii) of the DoP&T O.M. dated 24.11.2022 and Clause 7.4 of the ESIC Transfer Policy, both of which advocate for the mandatory posting of husband and wife at the same station; her husband is employed at Delhi University

The respondents argued that the transfer was in the public interest, no vacancies existed in Delhi NCR, and that administrative guidelines do not confer an enforceable right to a specific posting

The applicant sought a stay on the transfer and a direction for the respondents to consider her pending representation dated 13.04.2026

1. Whether the impugned transfer order is liable to be set aside for being in violation of the spouse-posting guidelines issued by the DoP&T and ESIC

2. Whether an employee has a vested right to remain at a particular station based on administrative guidelines in the absence of mala fides or statutory violations

The Tribunal relied on the principle that transfer is an incidence of service and judicial interference is limited unless the order is mala fide or violates statutory provisions, as established in Union of India v. S.L. Abbas

It applied the ratio from Namrata Verma v. State of U.P., which held that guidelines do not grant an enforceable right to a specific location and that the employer determines placement based on requirements

The court also cited Rajendra Roy v. Union of India, asserting that personal hardships and grievances regarding transfer policies are matters for departmental consideration rather than judicial mandate

Furthermore, it noted the DoP&T O.M. dated 24.11.2022 regarding spouse postings and the ESIC Transfer Policy dated 18.12.2024

The Tribunal examined whether the applicant's reliance on spouse-posting guidelines warranted the quashing of the transfer.

While acknowledging the guidelines, the Tribunal held that they do not create an absolute right to remain at a station, especially when the employer cites "public interest" and a lack of vacancies

The Tribunal distinguished the present case from other ESIC matters where interim relief was granted, noting those cases involved concessions by respondents or different factual matrices

Applying the settled legal position from S.L. Abbas and Namrata Verma, the Bench reasoned that since no mala fides or statutory illegality was proven, it could not interfere with the administrative decision

Following the precedent in Rajendra Roy, the Tribunal recognized that personal difficulties arising from the transfer should be addressed by the competent authority through administrative grievance redressal

However, it directed the respondents to decide the applicant’s pending representation dated 13.04.2026 by passing a reasoned and speaking order within two weeks from the receipt of the Tribunal's order

The O.A. was disposed of without any order as to costs