Transfer Order Stayed Pending Sympathetic Consideration of Spouse Policy and Medical Grounds

The applicant, an employee of the Military Engineer Services (MES) based in Udhampur, challenged a transfer order dated 24.11.2025 and a subsequent movement order dated 01.04.2026, which directed her transfer to Srinagar.

The applicant sought a posting nearer to Udhampur, citing her medical condition (supported by a certificate dated 04.09.2025), the need to care for her ailing mother-in-law, and the fact that her spouse is also a government employee.

She further alleged bias, noting that the respondents had modified transfer orders for other individuals while ignoring her representation.

1. Whether the respondents are obligated to consider the applicant’s request for modification of her transfer order based on medical grounds and spouse-posting policies.

2. Whether the applicant is entitled to interim protection from joining the new place of posting pending the disposal of her representation.

Office Memorandum (OM) dated 30.09.2009 issued by the Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions (DoPT), specifically para 4(vii), which provides that when spouses are both government employees (one Central, one State), the competent authority should endeavor to post the Central Government official at the same station as the spouse.

The administrative principle that representations regarding transfers involving medical hardship and family exigencies must be considered sympathetically and decided via reasoned and speaking orders.

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

By directing the respondents to "sympathetically consider" the case, the Tribunal linked the statutory guidelines of the OM to the specific facts of the applicant's domestic and health situation.

The Tribunal determined that a "reasoned and speaking order" was necessary to ensure that the respondents exercised their discretionary transfer powers without "bias and prejudice" as alleged by the counsel.

The respondents were ordered to pass a reasoned and speaking order within two weeks of receiving the judgment.

The Tribunal held that the applicant shall be permitted to continue at her present place of posting, and no coercive action shall be taken to force her to join the new station until her case is formally considered.