Transfer of Employee with 50% Disability Pending Superannuation Must Be Considered via Reasoned Representation.

The applicant, a Senior Field Assistant (GD) and former Army Medical Corps member, was re-employed by the respondent department on June 18, 2009.

He holds a 50% permanent disability certificate for life, which is regarded as aggravated by military service.

On February 20, 2026, and March 11, 2026, the respondents issued orders transferring the applicant from New Delhi to Thanamandi, a "hard and difficult" station on the Indo-Pakistan border.

This transfer occurred approximately one and a half years prior to his scheduled superannuation on December 31, 2027.

The applicant filed representations (Annexures A-7 and A-8) challenging the transfer based on his medical condition and his proximity to retirement, citing Department of Personnel Training (DoPT) guidelines.

Seeking the disposal of these pending representations, the applicant approached the Central Administrative Tribunal.

1. Whether the respondents are required to consider and decide upon the applicant’s pending representations against his transfer order in light of his physical disability and proximity to retirement?

Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, which provides the framework for civil servants to seek redressal against grievances.

Department of Personnel Training (DoPT) Office Memorandum (OM) dated February 2, 2024, which provides specific benefits and exemptions from rotational transfer policies for persons with disabilities.

General administrative principle that representations against transfer orders must be disposed of via reasoned and speaking orders within a reasonable timeframe.

The Tribunal did not adjudicate the merits of the transfer itself but focused on the procedural obligation of the respondents to address the applicant's grievances.

The applicant’s primary contention was that his 50% disability and his status as a "Senior" employee nearing retirement (superannuation) made his transfer to a high-conflict border area a violation of existing DoPT protective policies.

The Tribunal noted that the applicant had already submitted representations (Annexures A-7 and A-8) which remained undecided.

Applying the principle of natural justice and administrative efficiency, the Tribunal determined that the respondents must evaluate the applicant's specific circumstances—medical history and remaining tenure—against the statutory guidelines provided in the OM dated February 2, 2024, before enforcing the transfer.

The respondents were directed to complete this process within 30 days of receiving the order, with any consequential relief to follow within 45 days thereafter if the decision is in favor of the applicant; Original Application disposed of at the admission stage without expressing an opinion on the merits; no order as to costs.