Transfer Order Challenge: Tribunal directs applicant to join, then submit representation.

The applicant, Om Narayan Shukla, aged 58, an ex-serviceman who joined the Military Engineer Services (MES) in 2010, is presently posted as Assistant Garrison Engineer (Indep.), Fatehgarh Cantt.

He challenged the transfer/posting order dated February 18, 2025, issued by respondent no.3, and consequential movement orders dated December 4, 2025/January 2, 2026, issued by respondent no.6, transferring him to Commander Works Engineers, Dehradun (CWE), MES.

The applicant contended that the transfer was made without offering him a choice of station, ignoring his in-situ promotion from SAA to AAO, his medical condition, compassionate/last leg posting policy, and departmental rules.

He claimed to be in the final phase of his service with less than three years remaining and suffering from health issues.

The applicant argued the orders were arbitrary and violated natural justice.

The learned counsel for the respondents stated that the transfer was based on administrative grounds and had no objection if the Tribunal directed the competent authority to consider the applicant's representation.

1. Whether the transfer/posting order dated February 18, 2025, and consequential movement orders dated December 4, 2025/January 2, 2026, transferring the applicant to Commander Works Engineers, Dehradun, MES, should be quashed.

2. Whether the respondents should be directed not to give effect to the impugned transfer/movement orders, considering the applicant's age, service tenure, and last leg posting conditions.

The court applied the principle that an employee has the right to make a representation against a transfer order, and the competent authority must consider and decide such representation in accordance with applicable rules and policies governing transfer and promotion.

This aligns with the principles of natural justice, requiring administrative actions to be fair and reasonable.

The court noted that it was disposing of the application at the admission stage without delving into the substantive merits, including delay and laches.

It considered the fair submission by the respondents' counsel, who stated no objection to the competent authority considering the applicant's representation.

The court observed that the transfer order was issued on administrative grounds, followed by movement orders, and the applicant approached the Tribunal after the movement order was issued.

Despite the applicant challenging the orders as arbitrary and violative of departmental policy and natural justice, the court chose a procedural remedy, allowing the competent authority to re-evaluate the matter based on the applicant's comprehensive representation.

This approach prevented the Tribunal from adjudicating the merits prematurely while ensuring the applicant's grievances would be duly considered by the departmental authority in accordance with extant rules and policies.

The competent authority was directed to consider and decide this representation strictly in accordance with applicable rules and policies governing transfer and promotion, by passing a reasoned and speaking order within three months of receipt of the representation.

The court explicitly stated it had not entered into the question of delay, laches, or the merits of the applicant's claim, leaving all issues open for consideration by the competent authority in accordance with law.

No order was made as to costs.