Transfer representations must be decided via reasoned and speaking orders rather than mechanical, generic disposal.

The applicant, a senior officer at the Delhi Patent Office, challenged a transfer order dated 09.01.2026 relocating him to Kolkata

He contended that his wife is employed at UCO Bank in Delhi, having secured a transfer there on spouse grounds in 2023 with a mandatory five-year tenure

The applicant alleged that the transfer violated Clause 5.8 of the Respondents’ Transfer Policy (DoPT guidelines regarding spouse postings) and Clause 3.1 regarding rotational transfers in descending order of tenure

Despite submitting representations on 09.01.2026 and 19.02.2026 detailing personal hardships, the respondents issued "mechanical" common orders on 17.02.2026 and 08.04.2026 rejecting the requests of several employees without specific reasoning

The applicant was subsequently relieved on 13.04.2026 during the pendency of the Original Application

1. Whether the impugned transfer and the rejection of the applicant's representation were handled in an arbitrary and mechanical manner by the respondents

2. Whether the respondents failed to adhere to the statutory guidelines and policy regarding spouse-ground postings and rotational transfers

The Tribunal considered the DoPT guidelines and Clause 5.8 of the Respondents’ Transfer Policy, which stipulate that husband and wife should, as far as possible, be posted at the same station

It relied on the principle from Union of India v. S.L. Abbas, which holds that while guidelines do not confer an indefeasible legal right, authorities must keep them in mind during transfers

It referenced Bank of India v. Jagjit Singh Mehta, emphasizing that departmental authorities should consider spouse-living requirements alongside administrative exigencies

The Tribunal also acknowledged the well-settled principle from Mrs. Shilpi Bose v. State of Bihar and Gujarat Electricity Board v. Atmaram Sungomal Poshani that transfer is an incident of service and courts should generally not interfere unless the order is mala fide or violates mandatory rules

The Tribunal found that the respondents’ rejection of the applicant’s representation was "mechanical" and "arbitrary"

Specifically, the orders dated 17.02.2026 and 08.04.2026 dealt with 27 and 55 employees respectively using identical, template language without addressing the specific individual hardships or points raised in the applicant’s representation

The court reasoned that while administrative authorities have the prerogative to transfer for rationalization of manpower, such power must be exercised with sensitivity toward the morale of senior officers

The Tribunal held that "public interest" and "administrative exigency" should not be viewed in isolation from employee morale and welfare, as the latter contributes significantly to the delivery of public services

By failing to pass a reasoned and speaking order, the respondents neglected their duty to fairly consider the applicant's spouse-ground difficulties

It quashed the transfer order dated 09.01.2026 and the relieving order dated 13.04.2026 regarding the applicant

The respondents were directed to reconsider the applicant’s representation afresh, taking into account the DoPT spouse-posting instructions and relevant Supreme Court precedents, and to pass a reasoned and speaking order within 15 days

The Tribunal further ordered that the applicant be permitted to remain at his present Delhi posting until the new order is issued