Transfer order stayed pending consideration of representation seeking retention on humanitarian medical grounds.

The applicant, a Group C employee serving as a Dental Technician since 2012 at ESIC MC PGIMSR, Bangalore, challenged a transfer order dated 09.04.2026 moving him to Kalaburagi.

The applicant is the sole caregiver for his 74-year-old mother, who suffers from critical health issues requiring regular hospital visits.

During the Annual General Transfer (AGT) process, the applicant submitted medical records and requested retention in Bangalore (Rajajinagar or Peenya); however, the impugned transfer order was issued without addressing these grounds.

The applicant submitted a formal representation on 10.04.2026, which remained pending at the time of the filing of this Original Application.

1. Whether the transfer order dated 09.04.2026 and the Transfer Policy dated 28.12.2024 are liable to be quashed due to the non-consideration of the applicant’s humanitarian grounds.

2. Whether the respondents are obligated to decide upon a pending representation regarding medical hardships before relieving an employee pursuant to a transfer.

The Tribunal exercised jurisdiction under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985.

It applied the principle of administrative equity and natural justice, which mandates that an employee's representation regarding personal hardships—specifically the care of an elderly, ailing parent—must be considered by the competent authority in a time-bound manner.

The court relied on the doctrine that transfer orders, while an incident of service, should not be enforced while a legitimate grievance redressal request is pending, provided the employee has not yet been relieved.

The Tribunal noted that the applicant had proactively submitted medical documentation and requested retention during the AGT process, yet the respondents issued the transfer order without reflecting on these facts.

The applicant’s counsel highlighted that the new Transfer Policy lacked a clear grievance redressal mechanism and that the applicant had not yet been relieved from his current post.

The Tribunal reasoned that the interests of justice would be best served not by quashing the policy or order immediately, but by compelling the administrative authority to exercise its discretion.

By directing a time-bound disposal of the representation, the court ensured that the administration fulfills its duty to consider the "serious and precarious health conditions" of the applicant's mother before executing the transfer.

The court granted interim relief by ordering that the applicant shall not be disturbed from his present place of posting in Bangalore until the said decision is taken.

No order as to costs was issued.