Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Vivek Kumar Awasthi vs Employees State Insurance Corporation ... on 21 April, 2026
1
Central Administrative Tribunal
Principal Bench
O.A. No.1524/2026
M.A. No.2000/2026
New Delhi, this the 21st day of April, 2026
Hon'ble Mr. Sanjeeva Kumar, Member (A)
Hon'ble Mr. Ajay Pratap Singh, Member (J)
Vivek Kumar Awasthi, (Aged about 50 years) s/o
Shri Y.K. Awasthi, R/o House No. 128/529, Y Block,
Kidwai Nagarn, Kanpur-208011.
...Applicant
Versus
1. Union of India through the Director General,
Employees' State Insurance Corporation, Panchdeep
Bhawan, C.I.G. Marg, New Delhi - 110 001.
2. The Regional Director, ESIC Regional Office,
Sarvodaya Nagar, Kanpur, UP-208005.
....Respondents
For Applicant: Sh. Amit Chawla, Advocate
For Respondents: Dr. Divya Swamy, Standing Counsel
with Ms. Nidhi Kumar, Advocate.
ORDER (ORAL)
By Hon'ble Mr. Ajay Pratap Singh, Member (J):
MA No 2000/2026 The instant MA has been filed seeking exemption to file typed copies of dim annexures.
In view of the averments made in the MA, the same is allowed subject to all being just exceptions.
OA No 1524/2026Heard the parties with consent.
ABHAY CHAUDHAR ABHAY Y CHAUDHAR 2026.04.22 Y 14:47:10+ 05'30' 2
2. The challenge in the present OA is to an Order No.54 of year 2026 dated 10.04.2026 (Annexure A-1) whereby the applicant working as Social Security Officer in office of RO, Kanpur, Uttar Pradesh has been transferred to R.O., Indore, Madhya Pradesh by the competent authority on the recommendations of the Transfer Committee in public interest, with immediate effect.
3. Learned counsel for the applicant contended and can be summarized as under:-
(i) The applicant joined the services of the respondents ESIC in R.O., Colaba, Maharashtra in the year 2000 as a L.D.C. and was transferred to RO, Kanpur on 02.11.2001.
The applicant got promoted as UDC in 2008 and was transferred from RO, Kanpur to SRO, Lucknow as UDC in 2011 and was again transferred from SRO, Lucknow to RO, Kanpur on 18.06.2013. The applicant got further promoted from UDC to Assistant on 26.12.2013 and as Social Security Officer [SSO] in the year 2019.
(ii) The case of the applicant is that his mother is 81 years old and is suffering from Interstitial Lung Disease [LID] and is alive only on oxygen support round the clock. Apart from the above, applicant's mother is also suffering from osteoporosis because of which she is too feeble to take care of her day-to-day affairs, hence, needs constant treatment and applicant's care and attention.
(iii) Applicant's spouse is working as Assistant Teacher in village Majhavan, Block Vidhnu, Kanpur, Uttar Pradesh, which is non-transferable outside the State of Uttar Pradesh.
(iv) As per Clauses 4.1, 4.3, 7.3 of the Transfer Policy dated 18.12.2024 read with Circular dated 11.11.2025, the ABHAY CHAUDHAR ABHAY Y CHAUDHAR 2026.04.22 Y 14:47:10+ 05'30' 3 impugned transfer Order qua the applicant is not sustainable and deserves to be quashed.
(v) The impugned transfer Order dated 10.04.2026 qua the applicant is not in the public interest and issued in flagrant violation of the Transfer Policy and without any public interest. In the case of OA No.749/2013 titled R.K. Sharma Vs. Union of India & Ors. vide final order dated 09.05.2013, this Tribunal directed respondents to pass a fresh order indicating whether transfer of the applicant is in deviation of Clauses 5.5 and 5.6 of the Transfer Policy warranting public interest and administrative exigency and the present OA is covered by the said judgment.
(vi) Applicant is the care-giver to his dependent mother suffering with suffering from Interstitial Lung Disease [LID], osteoporosis and is on oxygen support round the clock - applicant be exempted from the impugned transfer order.
(vii) The impugned transfer Order is not in public interest and deserves to be quashed in light of judgment dated 03.10.2013 in case of Swati Singh vs. M.P., KVVC reported in (2014) 1 MPLJ 308 by Hon'ble High Court of Madhya Pradesh, Gwalior.
4. Learned counsel for the applicant raised no other point.
5. Issue notice to respondents. Dr. Divya Swami, Standing Counsel with Ms. Nidhi Kumar, Advocate appears on behalf of both the respondents and accepts notice.
6. Learned counsel for the respondents sounding a contra note submitted that Apex Court in Union of India vs. S.L. Abbas, AIR 1993 SC 2444 has held that the guidelines do not confer upon a government employee an enforceable right unless an order of transfer is violative of statutory ABHAY CHAUDHAR ABHAY Y CHAUDHAR 2026.04.22 Y 14:47:10+ 05'30' 4 mandatory provisions or malafide in nature, the courts should not interfere with it.
7. Learned counsel for the applicant also contended that Hon'ble Supreme in case of Union of India vs. S.L. Abbas (supra). Their Lordships further observed that while ordering an order of transfer, the authority must keep in mind the guidelines issued by the Government. This Tribunal, in a similar case titled as R.K. Sharma vs. Union of India & Ors. (supra), disposed of the OA with direction to the respondents to pass a fresh order. Applicant has filed representation dated 15.04.2026 (Annexure A-6) against the impugned Order on the ground his mother's illness and on spouse ground.
8. Learned counsel for the applicant, after arguing at substantial length, submits that the applicant would be satisfied if respondents are directed to consider applicant's pending representation dated 15.04.2026 (Annexure A-6) in light of the Transfer Policy dated 18.12.2024 and Circular dated 11.11.2025.
9. The learned counsel for the respondents fairly submits that the applicant has been relieved from Kanpur and she is not in a position to give concession and the OA is devoid of merits.
10. Heard. We have considered the matter. In view of above submissions and considering the fact of the matter that the impugned transfer Order dated 10.04.2026 qua the applicant is assailed on the violation of the Transfer Policy dated 18.12.2024 and Circular dated 11.11.2025 and personal hardships. The dependent mother of the applicant is suffering from Interstitial Lung Disease [LID], osteoporosis and is on oxygen support round the clock in Delhi. So also, ABHAY CHAUDHAR ABHAY Y CHAUDHAR 2026.04.22 Y 14:47:10+ 05'30' 5 applicant's spouse is working as Assistant Teacher in Kanpur, Uttar Pradesh.
11. The Supreme Court recently in the case of Namrata Verma Vs. State of U.P. and others by order dated 06.09.2021 passed in SLP (Civil) No.36717/2017 has held that "it is not for the employee to insist to transfer him/her and/or not to transfer him/her at a particular place. It is for the employer to transfer an employee considering the requirement. Until and unless the transfer is vitiated by mala fide or is made in violation of any statutory provisions, the Court cannot interfere with the order of transfer. The Supreme Court, while dealing with the scope of judicial review in the matter of transfer, held that transfer is an incidence of service and normally should not be interfered with by the Court. If any administrative guidelines recalling transfer of an employee are violated, at best the same confers the right on the employee to approach the higher authorities for redressal of his grievance. [See: Union of India and Others v.S.L. Abbas, (1993) 4 SCC 357, State Bank of India v. Anjan Sanyal and others, (2001) 5 SCC 508, Public Services Tribunal Bar Association v. State of U.P. and another, (2003) 4 SCC 104, State of U.P. and Others v. Gobardhan Lal, (2004) 1 SCC 402, R.S. Chaudhary and Others v. State of M.P. and Others, ILR (2007) MP 1329, Government of Andhra Pradesh v. G.Venkata 4 WP. No. 4738/2017 (Braj Kishore Paliwal Vs. State of M.P. and others) Ratnam, (2008) 9 SCC 345 and State of Haryana and Others v. Kashmir Singh and Another, (2010) 13 SCC 306].
12. In case of Rajendra Roy vs. Union of India (1993) 1 SCC 148. Their Lordships observed that "in transfer matters personal difficulties are matters for consideration of ABHAY CHAUDHAR ABHAY Y CHAUDHAR 2026.04.22 Y 14:47:10+ 05'30' 6 the department and if such representation is made too about personal hardships, being suffered by the applicant in view of impugned Order, it is reasonable expected that the same should be considered by the department as expeditiously as practicable".
13. For all the reasons stated hereinabove, this OA is disposed of at admission stage itself with directions to the competent authority amongst the respondents to take decision on pending representation dated 15.04.2026 (Annexure A-6) by considering each contention of the applicant by passing a reasoned and speaking order as expeditiously as practicable, preferably within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.
14. There shall be no order as to costs.
15. Pending Miscellaneous Application(s), if any, also stands closed.
(Ajay Pratap Singh) (Sanjeeva Kumar)
Member (J) Member (A)
/na/
ABHAY
CHAUDHAR
ABHAY
Y
CHAUDHAR
2026.04.22
Y
14:47:10+
05'30'