Transfer was deferred pending a reasoned decision on the employee’s representation.

Neeraj Kumar, a Senior Administrative Assistant posted at GE (E), Delhi Cantt., was elected Senior Vice-President of the recognised All India MES Admin Cadre and Ministerial Staff Association for the term from 1 March 2025 to 28 February 2027.

The Association sought protection from his transfer during his tenure, but the request was rejected on 6 March 2026.

Meanwhile, by order dated 10 April 2026, the applicant was transferred from GE (E), Delhi Cantt. to HQ CE 31 Zone, Srinagar.

His representation against the transfer, including on the ground that his wife was suffering from cancer, was rejected on 22 May 2026.

The applicant challenged the transfer and consequential orders, relying on Government of India memoranda dated 18 November 1960 and 8 April 1969 and the Ministry of Defence clarification dated 26 October 2018, which allegedly protected certain office-bearers of recognised associations from transfer outside their station or headquarters.

The respondents sought time to file a short reply and opposed interim relief.

The applicant also filed MA No. 4252/2026 seeking exemption regarding certain annexures and translated copies; the MA was allowed subject to just exceptions.

1. Whether the applicant’s transfer from Delhi Cantt. to Srinagar was liable to be stayed or set aside on the ground that, as an elected office-bearer of a recognised association, he enjoyed protection from transfer under the applicable Government and Ministry of Defence instructions.

2. Whether the applicant’s personal hardship, particularly his wife’s cancer treatment, warranted reconsideration or deferment of the transfer.

3. Whether the respondents were required to reconsider the applicant’s representation by applying the relevant transfer-policy provisions and by passing a reasoned and speaking order.

The Tribunal considered the Government of India Office Memoranda dated 18 November 1960 and 8 April 1969 and the Ministry of Defence clarification dated 26 October 2018, particularly paragraph 2(xii), concerning protection from transfer or posting of specified office-bearers of recognised associations.

It applied the principle that transfer is ordinarily an administrative matter, but an employee’s genuine personal hardships and claims under applicable transfer policies must be objectively considered by the competent authority.

Relying on Rajendra Roy v. Union of India, (1993) 1 SCC 148, the Tribunal held that representations concerning personal hardship should be considered by the department 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 where a transfer is challenged as contrary to a transfer policy, the employee should approach the authorities and the authorities must examine the alleged violation objectively in light of the policy guidelines.

The Tribunal noted that the applicant had raised an arguable claim of protection from transfer under the applicable association-related instructions, particularly paragraph 2(xii) of the 26 October 2018 clarification.

It also found that the applicant had produced material concerning his wife’s serious medical condition and that the departmental communication dated 22 May 2026 itself acknowledged the medical circumstances and contemplated consideration under the applicable CG policy provisions.

Applying the principles in Rajendra Roy and R.S. Chaudhary, the Tribunal considered it appropriate for the competent authorities—not the Tribunal at the admission stage—to examine the applicant’s updated representation, the alleged policy protection, and the medical hardship, and to record a reasoned decision.

Since the applicant had not yet been relieved, interim protection was considered necessary to preserve the existing position until such consideration was completed.

It disposed of the OA at the admission stage with directions that the applicant may file a fresh, updated representation within seven days, which the respondents must consider and decide by a reasoned and speaking order as expeditiously as practicable.

Until that representation was decided, the transfer order dated 10 April 2026 was not to be implemented, and the applicant was permitted to continue at his original place of posting.

If the decision was adverse, the respondents were directed not to implement the transfer for fifteen days from the date on which the decision was communicated to the applicant.

No order as to costs was made.