Facts
The applicant, a Social Security Officer (SSO) with the Employees’ State Insurance Corporation (ESIC), challenged Transfer Order No. 54/2026 dated 10.04.2026, which moved him from Faridabad, Haryana, to Durgapur, West Bengal
Source reference: p. 2The applicant had been posted at Faridabad since March 2024 following a previous transfer from ESIC Headquarters
Source reference: p. 2He contended that the new transfer occurred after only two years at his current station and ignored his request for retention in the Delhi-NCR region on spouse grounds (his wife being employed with the GNCTD in a non-transferable post) and educational grounds (his daughter being in Class 10 for the 2026-2027 academic year)
Source reference: p. 3, 5The applicant submitted a representation on 11.04.2026, which remained pending at the time of the application
Source reference: p. 3Issues
1. Whether the impugned transfer order was arbitrary and in violation of the ESIC Transfer Policy dated 19.12.2024 and DoPT instructions regarding the posting of husband and wife at the same station
Source reference: p. 3, 52. Whether the transfer, issued during the middle of the academic year, necessitated judicial intervention to prevent hardship to the applicant’s children
Source reference: p. 5-6Law Applied
The Tribunal primarily considered the DoPT Office Memorandums dated 30.09.2009 and 14.10.2009, which mandate that the competent authority should strive to post spouses at the same station
Source reference: p. 3, 4It relied on the ESIC Transfer Policy dated 19.12.2024 (Clauses 7.4 and 12.6) concerning personal hardships and tenure
Source reference: p. 5Regarding judicial review, the Tribunal applied the principles from Union of India v. S.L. Abbas (1993), which establish that while transfer is an incidence of service, authorities must follow government guidelines
Source reference: p. 4-5It further cited Director of School Education v. Karuppa Thevan (1994), holding that mid-academic year transfers should generally be avoided, and Rajendra Roy v. Union of India (1993), which mandates that departments must expeditiously consider representations regarding personal hardships
Source reference: p. 6Reasoning
The Tribunal analyzed the applicant’s grievance by weighing the employer's administrative prerogative against the mandatory consideration of established guidelines. It noted that the applicant had only completed a short tenure of two years in Faridabad before being moved 1300 kms away, potentially violating the spirit of the ESIC Transfer Policy and DoPT spouse-posting norms
Source reference: p. 2-3, 5The Court observed that the respondents’ counsel expressed a willingness to sympathetically consider the applicant's pending representation, given the non-transferable nature of the spouse's job and the children's education
Source reference: p. 5By citing Karuppa Thevan, the Tribunal emphasized that the timing of the transfer—during the academic year—was a critical factor necessitating a stay on implementation until a formal administrative review of the applicant’s hardships was completed
Source reference: p. 6-7Holding
The Tribunal disposed of the OA at the admission stage without quashing the order but provided significant procedural relief. It directed the respondents to decide on the applicant’s representation dated 11.04.2026 by passing a reasoned and speaking order
The Tribunal ordered that the transfer order dated 10.04.2026 shall not be implemented, and the applicant shall be allowed to continue at his current posting until the representation is decided. Furthermore, should the representation be rejected, the respondents were directed not to implement the transfer for an additional fifteen days from the date of communication of the decision to allow the applicant further legal recourse
Source reference: p. 7Original Court PDF
Manoj KumarvsEMPLOYEES STATE INSURANCE CORPORATION (ESIC)
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in