Transfer orders must remain in abeyance pending a reasoned decision on the employee’s representation.

The applicant, a Junior Engineer (Civil), was transferred from ESIC Model Hospital, Gurugram, to the Regional Office, Puducherry, by order dated 7 September 2026 and relieved the same day.

He contended that the transfer violated the ESIC Transfer Policy dated 19 December 2024 because he had not completed ten years in Delhi and the Delhi-NCR region; he also cited the distance of the transfer and his responsibility for his elderly parents.

He submitted a representation on 9 September 2026, which remained pending.

At the hearing, the applicant agreed to seek a direction for a decision on that representation, and the respondents undertook to consider it in accordance with law.

1. Whether the respondents should be directed to consider and decide the applicant’s pending representation against his transfer.

2. Whether the transfer and relieving orders should remain operative while that representation is considered.

The Tribunal relied on the principle stated by the Madhya Pradesh High Court in R.S. Chaudhary v. State of M.P. & Ors., ILR (2007) MP 1329: where a transfer is challenged for violating transfer-policy guidelines, the employee’s appropriate remedy is to bring the alleged violation to the authorities’ attention, and the authorities are expected to consider it objectively in light of the policy.

The Tribunal also referred to its order in OA No. 1477/2025, which directed consideration of a pending representation within a specified period and granted interim protection pending that decision.

The Tribunal did not determine whether the transfer violated the policy or was otherwise unlawful.

Instead, having regard to the parties’ submissions, the applicant’s pending representation, and the principle that transfer-policy objections should first be considered objectively by the authorities, it directed the competent authority to decide the representation by a reasoned and speaking order.

To preserve the applicant’s position during that consideration, it ordered that the transfer and relieving orders be kept in abeyance and that he continue at his original posting.

It directed the competent authority to decide the applicant’s representation dated 9 September 2026 within three weeks from receipt of a certified copy of the order.

Until then, the transfer and relieving orders dated 7 September 2026 were to remain in abeyance, and the applicant was permitted to continue at his original place of posting.