Transfer must remain in abeyance pending reasoned disposal of the employee’s representation.

The applicant, while serving as Superintendent of Post Offices (SPOs), Mandya, was transferred and posted as Senior Postmaster, Mangaluru Head Post Office, by order dated 2 January 2026 and assumed charge on 13 January 2026.

By Memo dated 11 September 2026, Respondent No. 3 transferred him from Mangaluru to Shivamogga as SPOs, before completion of eight months in the post.

The applicant challenged the transfer, citing hardship to his son’s education during the academic year and the need to care for his aged mother following his father’s death on 25 June 2026.

He submitted a representation dated 12 September 2026 requesting cancellation of the transfer and continuation at Mangaluru, but the representation remained undecided.

He thereafter approached the Tribunal under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985.

Whether the Tribunal should quash the applicant’s transfer from Mangaluru to Shivamogga on the grounds of premature transfer and personal hardship.

Whether the competent authority should be directed to consider and decide the applicant’s pending representation by a reasoned and speaking order.

Whether the impugned transfer order should remain in abeyance until such decision is taken.

The application was brought under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, which enables an aggrieved government servant to seek redress against an order relating to service conditions.

The Tribunal applied the procedural principle that a pending representation concerning a transfer must be considered by the competent authority in accordance with law and decided through an expedited, reasoned and speaking order.

Without examining the merits of the transfer or substituting its decision for that of the administrative authority, the Tribunal exercised limited judicial review to ensure consideration of the representation and temporarily protected the applicant against implementation of the transfer.

No specific judicial precedent was relied upon.

The Tribunal noted that the applicant’s representation dated 12 September 2026, raising his alleged premature transfer and personal difficulties, was pending before Respondent No. 2.

Since the representation had not yet been considered, the Tribunal declined to adjudicate the merits of the transfer or determine whether the applicant’s grounds justified cancellation of the order.

Instead, it directed the competent authority to examine the representation in accordance with law and pass a speaking order within eight weeks of receiving the certified copy of the order.

To preserve the effectiveness of that direction and prevent the applicant’s transfer before his grievance was addressed, the Tribunal ordered that the transfer memo dated 11 September 2026 be kept in abeyance insofar as it concerned the applicant.

It directed Respondent No. 2 to consider the applicant’s representation dated 12 September 2026 and pass a speaking order within eight weeks from receipt of the certified copy of the judgment.

Until that decision, the transfer order dated 11 September 2026 was to remain in abeyance as against the applicant.

The Original Application was disposed of accordingly, with no order as to costs.