Transfer order: Tribunal directs consideration of employee's hardship and departmental vacancies.

The applicant, Pradeep Kumar Sharma, a 55-year-old permanent employee of Indian Railways working as a Chief Loco Inspector under Jhansi Division, challenged a transfer order dated February 13, 2026, transferring him from Jhansi to Juhi on alleged administrative grounds.

The applicant contended that this transfer was premature and contrary to transfer policy, as he was previously transferred to Banda in September 2023, brought back to Jhansi on October 11, 2024, and then re-transferred within 14 months of rejoining Jhansi.

He further argued that 62 posts of Chief Loco Inspectors were vacant at Jhansi as of January 31, 2026, negating any administrative exigency for his transfer, while vacancies at Juhi were minimal.

The applicant also pleaded personal hardship, citing his son's MBBS studies at MLB Medical College, Jhansi, and his wife's chronic ailments.

He submitted a representation detailing these hardships on February 23, 2026.

The respondents contended that the transfer was an incidence of service, passed by the competent authority on administrative grounds due to departmental requirements, and did not suffer from illegality or mala fide.

1. Whether the transfer order dated February 13, 2026, transferring the applicant from Jhansi to Juhi, should be quashed and set aside.

2. Whether the respondents should be directed not to interfere with the applicant's peaceful working at Jhansi.

3. Whether the applicant's representation dated February 23, 2026, regarding his transfer should be considered and decided by the competent authority.

The court primarily considered the principles governing judicial interference in transfer matters, generally holding that transfer is an incidence of service and courts ought not to interfere unless there is illegality or mala fide intent.

The court also acknowledged the importance of considering personal hardships and administrative exigencies in transfer decisions.

The court heard arguments from both parties and, without entering into the merits of the applicant's claim, decided to dispose of the application at the admission stage.

The court noted the applicant's contentions regarding the premature nature of the transfer, the availability of vacancies at Jhansi, and the personal hardships of his wife's medical condition and son's education.

Recognizing that the applicant had already submitted a representation dated February 23, 2026, detailing these facts, the court found it appropriate to direct the competent authority among the respondents to consider and decide this representation in accordance with the law.

This approach allows the administrative authority to apply its discretion while taking into account the specific circumstances pleaded by the applicant, consistent with established legal principles for reviewing transfers.

The competent authority was specifically directed to consider the facts pleaded by the applicant, including his wife's medical condition, his son's educational commitments, and the issue of vacancies at Jhansi Division, and to pass a reasoned and speaking order.

The court further directed that till the representation is decided, the applicant shall not be relieved from his present place of posting, i.e., Jhansi, if already not relieved.

The decision on the representation is to be communicated to the applicant forthwith.

The court clarified that it did not enter into the merits of the applicant's claim, leaving all points open for consideration by the respondents.