Transfer orders and subsequent summary rejections of representations must be reasoned and speaking.

The applicant, an employee at the Office of the Controller General of Patents, Designs and Trade Marks (CGPDTM) in Delhi, challenged a transfer order dated 09.01.2026, which relocated him to Kolkata.

The applicant submitted representations citing personal difficulties, including care for a dependent parent, the online nature of the office's work, and a preference for a posting in Ahmedabad.

These representations were rejected via orders dated 17.02.2026 and 08.04.2026, and the applicant was relieved on 13.04.2026.

The applicant alleged that the transfer violated the "first-in-first-out" principle, was arbitrary, and that the rejection orders were non-speaking.

1. Whether the transfer and relieving orders were legally sustainable given the allegation of being non-speaking and mechanical in nature.

2. Whether the respondents failed to follow the applicable transfer policy and DoPT guidelines regarding personal hardships and alternative posting requests.

any order passed by an authority, especially those rejecting an employee's representation against a transfer, must be "reasoned and speaking" to ensure fair consideration.

principle of parity, citing OA No. 1383/2026, where similar transfer orders from the same department were quashed due to lack of due consideration.

The court acknowledged the Government's authority to transfer employees based on "public interest and administrative exigencies" under DoPT guidelines, provided such power is not exercised in a "pick-and-choose" or arbitrary manner.

The Tribunal found that the respondents’ rejection of the applicant’s representation was "cryptic and non-speaking," failing to address the specific grounds raised, such as the request for an Ahmedabad posting or the feasibility of online work.

the respondents maintained the transfer was in the public interest, they failed to demonstrate a fair application of the transfer policy or the "first-in-first-out" principle.

By comparing the case to OA No. 1383/2026, the Tribunal determined that there was no reason to deviate from the precedent of quashing transfer orders where the administration had not provided reasoned responses to the employees' grievances.

The Tribunal emphasized that "fair consideration" is a right of the employee when personal difficulties are raised.

The respondents were directed to reconsider the applicant’s case, including human grounds and the request for Ahmedabad, and pass a reasoned and speaking order within 15 days.

The Tribunal further ordered that the applicant be permitted to continue at his original place of posting until the fresh representation is decided.

No costs were awarded.