Transfer-policy representation must be considered while interim protection at the existing posting continues.

The applicant, a Sub-Divisional Officer (Civil), was transferred from UP East to Uttarakhand in 2022.

On his request, the respondents modified that transfer in December 2023, posting him to CNTX-N, New Delhi, where he joined on 19 April 2024.

By order dated 2 May 2025, he was transferred again to Maharashtra Circle and was relieved on 2 August 2025.

He challenged the transfer, alleging, among other things, breach of paragraphs 11(b) and 11(k) of BSNL’s Employee Transfer Policy, short tenure at CNTX-N, and personal hardship.

The Tribunal had permitted him to continue at CNTX-N by interim order dated 14 October 2025; he remained there pending the OA.

The respondents’ counsel stated that the applicant could submit a fresh representation, which would be considered in accordance with law and the policy.

1. Whether the transfer order dated 2 May 2025 was liable to be set aside for alleged violation of paragraphs 11(b) and 11(k) of BSNL’s Employee Transfer Policy.

2. Whether the applicant’s grievances should be considered by the competent authority through a comprehensive representation, with interim protection continuing until its decision.

The Tribunal relied on Rajendra Roy v. Union of India, (1993) 1 SCC 148, for the principle that a department should consider representations raising personal hardship from a transfer as expeditiously as practicable.

It also relied on R.S. Chaudhary v. State of M.P. & Ors., ILR (2007) MP 1329, for the principle that an employee alleging breach of transfer-policy guidelines should approach the authorities, who are expected to consider the grievance objectively in light of those guidelines.

The Tribunal referred to paragraphs 11(b) and 11(k) of BSNL’s Employee Transfer Policy as the provisions invoked by the applicant, but did not interpret or determine their application on the merits.

The Tribunal noted the applicant’s short period at CNTX-N, his impending superannuation, and his pending transfer-related grievances, but did not decide whether the transfer violated the policy.

In light of the parties’ consent and the respondents’ undertaking to consider a fresh representation, it provided a procedural remedy: the applicant could submit a comprehensive, updated representation, and the competent authority was directed to decide it.

The cited precedents supported consideration of the applicant’s hardship and policy-based objections by the department; they did not lead the Tribunal to adjudicate the transfer’s validity in this OA.

The applicant was granted two weeks from receipt of the certified order to file a comprehensive representation, which the competent authority was directed to consider and decide as expeditiously as possible.

Until then, the interim order dated 14 October 2025 was to continue, allowing the applicant to remain posted at CNTX-N, New Delhi.

The MA was also disposed of, with no order as to costs.