Transfer of a government doctor made in public interest and in accordance with policy guidelines is not subject to judicial interference.

The Applicant, an Insurance Medical Officer (Grade-I) at ESIC Hospital, Udyogamandal, challenged her transfer to ESIC Hospital, Asramam, Kollam, issued via order dated 20.05.2023

She joined the service in 2013, took study leave from 2018–2021, and rejoined Udyogamandal in May 2021

She contended the transfer was premature (claiming a six-year tenure from 2021), violated policy regarding her dependent mother’s health, and ignored her minor child’s needs

Procedurally, she was relieved on 10.11.2023

After the Tribunal initially declined interim relief, the Hon'ble High Court ordered status quo and later clarified she could work at her original station pending disposal

She rejoined on 01.02.2024 but challenged the respondents’ direction to treat the gap period (11.11.2023 to 31.01.2024) as leave instead of duty

1. Whether the transfer order and the Grievance Redressal Committee's rejection are legally sustainable under the Transfer Policy.

2. Whether the period of absence from 11.11.2023 to 31.01.2024 should be regularized as "on duty" or through "eligible leave."

The Tribunal applied the principle that transfer is an incident and essential condition of service, and employees have no vested right to a specific station

The employer is the best judge of where an employee’s services are required under the "Public Interest" doctrine.

Statement on the doctrine derived from Union of India v. S.L. Abbas [AIR 1993 SC 2444] regarding the limited scope of judicial interference in transfers.

Statement on the doctrine derived from Shilpi Bose v. State of Bihar [AIR 1991 SC 532] noting that transfer policies/guidelines do not have statutory force and are merely for administrative guidance.

The Tribunal found the Applicant had completed over seven years of active service at Udyogamandal (excluding study leave), negating the "premature transfer" claim as the six-year tenure is not an absolute right

Regarding the mother’s health, the court noted that "Benign Paroxysmal positional vertigo" does not qualify as a "life-threatening/terminal disease" under Clause 5 of the Transfer Policy

The Tribunal further observed "double standards" in the Applicant's request: she claimed domestic hardship for the Kollam transfer but expressed willingness to move to Bangalore

In O.A. 221/2024, the court applied the "no work, no pay" logic, noting that because the Applicant was validly relieved on 10.11.2023 and did not discharge medical duties until 01.02.2024, the period could not be treated as "on duty" regardless of the High Court's interim status quo order

Both Original Applications were dismissed and the Applicant must apply for eligible leave to regularize her absence from 11.11.2023 to 31.01.2024, as she did not perform duties during that timeframe.