Transfer representations must be decided via reasoned, speaking orders addressing specific hardships rather than through mechanical, common disposal.

The applicant, an Assistant Controller of Patents & Designs (Group ‘A’) stationed in Delhi, challenged a transfer order dated 08.12.2025, which relocated him to Mumbai

The applicant contended that the transfer violated the Revised Transfer Policy dated 04.07.2025, specifically regarding rotational transfers based on tenure length

He further cited severe personal hardship, noting his mother’s multiple serious medical conditions—including uterine fibroids and splenomegaly—which require continuous specialized treatment and his direct supervision in Delhi

Despite submitting representations on 09.12.2025 and 19.02.2026, the respondents issued a common, summary rejection order on 20.01.2026 for 42 different employees, citing "administrative exigency" without addressing the applicant's specific grievances

The applicant was relieved of his duties on 13.04.2026 during the pendency of the OA

1. Whether the impugned transfer and relieving orders were arbitrary and in violation of the Revised Transfer Policy dated 04.07.2025

2. Whether the respondents’ mechanical disposal of the applicant’s representation, without assigning specific reasons or considering individual medical hardships, warrants judicial interference

Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunal Act, 1985

Revised Transfer Policy dated 04.07.2025

Mrs. Shilpi Bose v. State of Bihar, which held that courts should not interfere with transfers unless they violate statutory rules or involve malafides

S.C. Saxena v. Union of India, which emphasizes that an employee must join the new post before ventilating grievances

Union of India v. S.L. Abbas, stating that while guidelines do not confer enforceable legal rights, authorities must keep them in mind during decision-making

Administrative actions must be sensitive to employee morale and individual difficulties to ensure the delivery of public services

The Tribunal acknowledged the respondents' prerogative to transfer staff for administrative efficiency and rationalization

However, it found that the respondents’ disposal of the applicant's representation was "mechanical" and lacked sensitivity

The court observed that the common order dated 20.01.2026 failed to address the specific medical and tenure-based grounds raised by the applicant

The Tribunal reasoned that while public interest is paramount, it cannot be considered in isolation from employee morale; senior officers deserve a "sympathetic consideration" of individual difficulties through reasoned and speaking orders

By failing to provide specific grounds for rejecting the applicant’s particular grievances, the respondents acted in an arbitrary manner that justified judicial intervention

It directed the respondents to consider the applicant’s representation afresh in light of relevant judicial precedents and 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 Delhi posting until the new representation is decided

The OA was disposed of at the admission stage with no order as to costs