Transfer representations must be decided through reasoned and speaking orders addressing specific individual difficulties and grievances.

The applicant, a Group ‘A’ officer serving as Assistant Controller of Patents & Designs in Delhi, challenged a transfer order dated 09.01.2026 transferring him to Mumbai

The applicant sought relief on medical grounds, stating his mother had undergone partial replacement surgery and required continuous medical supervision and therapy

He alleged that the transfer violated the Department’s Revised Transfer Policy dated 04.07.2025, specifically regarding rotational transfer based on length of stay, noting that several officers with longer tenures (8–20 years) remained in Delhi

The applicant submitted two representations, which were rejected by the respondents via a common, non-speaking order dated 17.02.2026

During the pendency of the proceedings, the applicant was relieved from his Delhi post on 13.04.2026

1. Whether the transfer order and subsequent relieving order were arbitrary and in violation of the established Transfer Policy and medical exigencies?

2. Whether the respondents’ rejection of the applicant’s representation through a common mechanical order without assigning specific reasons is legally sustainable?

The Tribunal applied the principle that transfer is an incident of service and a government servant has no vested right to a specific posting, as established in Shilpi Bose v. State of Bihar

The Tribunal noted that while executive transfer guidelines do not confer legally enforceable rights (Union of India v. S.L. Abbas), administrative authorities must consider individual grievances with sensitivity and pass reasoned orders (State of UP v. Govardhan Lal).

The court also referenced S.C. Saxena v. Union of India, which emphasizes the duty of an employee to report to the new station before ventilating grievances, though it balanced this against the requirement for the administration to pass speaking orders on representations

Transfer is an incident of service and a government servant has no vested right to a specific posting, as established in Gujarat Electricity Board v. Atmaram Sungomal Poshani

The Tribunal acknowledged the administration's prerogative to deploy manpower for efficiency and public interest

However, it found that the respondents had disposed of the applicant's representation in a "mechanical manner" using a generic common order for 27 employees that failed to address the specific medical grounds raised by the applicant

The court reasoned that while administrative exigency is paramount, the individual difficulties of senior officers must be dealt with in a sensitive manner to maintain organizational morale

Because the rejection order failed to provide specific grounds or record reasons for denying the applicant's medical plea, it was deemed arbitrary and a failure of administrative duty

It directed the respondents to reconsider the applicant’s representation afresh, taking into account his specific medical grounds and applicable policy guidelines, and to pass a reasoned and speaking order within 15 days

The Tribunal further ordered that the applicant be allowed to remain at his present station in Delhi until the fresh representation is decided

The OA was disposed of at the admission stage