Transfer stayed pending disposal of representation challenging disputed "own request" classification in transfer order.

The applicant, a Group ‘D’ employee of the North Central Railway posted at Dagmagpur Railway Station, challenged a transfer order dated 13.01.2026 that moved him to Mota Railway Station

The impugned order characterized the transfer as being made upon the applicant’s “own request,” a claim the applicant categorically denies

The applicant highlighted that a similarly situated employee (Anurag Singh), listed in the same transfer order, had his transfer cancelled by the respondents on 05.03.2026 following a Tribunal order, yet the applicant was denied similar relief

Additionally, the applicant cited personal hardship as the sole caretaker of his mentally ill mother

A representation dated 10.03.2026 was submitted to the authorities but remained undecided

1. Whether the impugned transfer order dated 13.01.2026 is legally sustainable given the alleged factual error regarding the "own request" basis and the claim of discrimination

2. Whether the respondents are obligated to decide the applicant's pending representation in a time-bound manner before giving effect to the transfer

The court acknowledged the established legal principle that transfer is an incidence of service and that employees generally have no vested right to a specific posting

administrative actions must not be arbitrary or discriminatory

The court relied on the requirement for administrative authorities to dispose of representations through reasoned and speaking orders, ensuring that grievances regarding factual errors in transfer orders (such as incorrect "own request" labels) are addressed

The Tribunal observed a prima facie discrepancy in the transfer order, noting that it appeared to conflate "own request" with "administrative requirements," thereby casting doubt on its foundation

The court found merit in the applicant’s plea for parity, noting that the respondents had already cancelled the transfer of another employee (Anurag Singh) from the same order under similar circumstances

While the respondents argued that the transfer was necessitated by service exigencies, the Tribunal determined that the most equitable course of action at the admission stage was to ensure the administrative grievance redressal mechanism was exhausted

The court linked the necessity of a "reasoned and speaking order" to the applicant's specific hardships and the procedural history of the co-employee

It directed Respondent No. 2 to decide the applicant’s representation dated 10.03.2026 by passing a reasoned and speaking order within six weeks

Crucially, the Tribunal ordered that the applicant shall not be relieved from his current post at Dagmagpur Railway Station until the representation is decided, provided he has not already been relieved

No costs were awarded