Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Shyam Sunder Kaushik vs Employees State Insurance Corporation ... on 8 April, 2026
1
Central Administrative Tribunal
Principal Bench
O.A. No.1279/2026
M.A. No.1661/2026
New Delhi, this the 8th day of April, 2026
Hon'ble Mr. Sanjeeva Kumar, Member (A)
Hon'ble Mr. Ajay Pratap Singh, Member (J)
Sh. Shyam Sunder Kaushik, Age 56 years, s/o late
Shri Balbir Singh Sharma, R/o H.No.13, Block-E,
Sector-1, Rohini, Delhi - 110 085.
...Applicant
Versus
1. Hon'ble Chairman, Employees' State Insurance
Corporation, Panchdeep Bhawan, CIG Marg, New
Delhi - 110 002 through its Secretary.
2. The Director General (DG), Employees' State
Insurance Corporation, Panchdeep Bhawan, CIG
Marg, New Delhi -110 002.
....Respondents
For Applicant: Sh. V.K. Singh, Advocate
For Respondents: Dr. Divya Swami, Standing Counsel
with Ms. Nidhi Kumar, Advocate.
ORDER (ORAL)
By Hon'ble Mr. Ajay Pratap Singh, Member (J):
MA No 1661/2026 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 1279/2026Heard the parties.
ABHAY ABHAY CHAUDHARY CHAUDHARY 2026.04.13 10:40:04+05'30' 2 OA No. 1279/2026
2. By way of the present OA, the applicant has challenged the transfer Order No.47/2026 dated 02.04.2026 (Annexure A-1) whereby he has been transferred from the post of Deputy Director ESIC Medical College and Hospitals, PGIMSR, Basaidarapur, New Delhi to SRO, Tirunelveli, Tamil Nadu as Deputy Director and also seeking direction to the respondents to consider his representation dated 04.04.2026 and to allow him to continue to work at ESIC Hospital, Basaidarapur, New Delhi and further direction to the respondents to review the Transfer Policy dated 19.12.2024 being arbitrary and has no rational nexus with the objective sought to be achieved.
3. Learned counsel for the applicant vehemently contended and can be summarized as under -
(i) Applicant joined NTA, Dwarka in July, 2018 as Deputy Director on transfer in public interest and thereafter transferred to ESIC Medical College and Hospitals, PGIMSR, Basaidarapur as Deputy Director on 03.04.2024 and continuing till date. He has again been transferred from ESIC Hospital, Basaidarapur to SRO Tirunelveli vide impugned Order dated 02.04.2026 (Annexure A-1). So also, he has completed approximately two years' tenure. The impugned transfer Order dated 02.04.2026 qua the applicant is in flagrant violation of Clauses 4.1 and 5.2 (i) and 5.3 of Transfer Policy dated 19.12.2024 (Annexure A-3) which provides minimum 3 years' tenure for transfer. So also the impugned transfer Order qua the applicant is in violation of Clause 7.3 of the Transfer Policy dated 19.12.2024 as the applicant has not completed minimum tenure of three years, hence, as per Circular dated 11.11.2025 read with Clauses 7.3 and 5.3 of the Transfer Policy dated 19.12.2024 stipulates to file Online ABHAY ABHAY CHAUDHARY CHAUDHARY 2026.04.13 10:40:04+05'30' 3 OA No. 1279/2026 applications/Online Module in cases of officers, who have completed tenure, and request transfer as per Clause 5.2 (ii) of the Transfer Policy. The applicant has completed only two years on the present posting at ESIC Hospital, Basaidarapur, hence for the applicant, there was no opportunity to fill-up option for choice stations through Online Module as the same is available to only those officers who have completed tenure of 3 years. So also much emphasized that as per Clause 7.6 of the Transfer Policy -
officers posted at a station for longer shall be considered for transfer first and in this case respondents have acted in arbitrary manner, actuated by malafides, malice in law and in colourable exercise of power.
(ii) Applicant has joined on 03.04.2024 in the present place of posting and vide Order dated 02.04.2026 (Annexure A-1) has been transferred to SRO, Tirunelveli from Basaidarapur. The applicant has completed only two years at the present place of posting at Basaidarapur. As per Clauses 4.1, 4.3, 7.3 of the Transfer Policy dated 19.12.2024 read with Circular dated 11.11.2025, the impugned transfer Order qua the applicant is not sustainable and deserves to be quashed.
(iii) The impugned transfer Order dated 02.04.2026 qua the applicant is not in the public interest and issued in flagrant violation of the Transfer Policy as he has been transferred without completing three years' of service at one place and 22 posts are vacant that too 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 ABHAY ABHAY CHAUDHARY CHAUDHARY 2026.04.13 10:40:04+05'30' 4 OA No. 1279/2026 interest and administrative exigency and the present OA is covered by the said judgment.
(iv) 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. Issue notice to respondents. Dr. Divya Swami, Standing Counsel with Ms. Nidhi Kumar, Advocate appears on behalf of both the respondents and accepts notice.
5. Learned counsel for the respondents sounding a contra note submitted that the applicant has not furnished options sought for choice posting and it was open to give options/ choice stations. 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 mandatory provisions or malafide in nature, the courts should not interfere with it.
6. 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 04.04.2026 (Annexure A-8) against the impugned Order on the ground that he is suffering from multiple chronic ailments including uncontrolled Type-II Diabetes Mellitus and diabetic nephropathy and neuropathy ABHAY ABHAY CHAUDHARY CHAUDHARY 2026.04.13 10:40:04+05'30' 5 OA No. 1279/2026 so also the serious condition of his son who is diagnosed case of Hodgkin's Lymphoma (Cancer) and has undergone multiple cycles of chemotherapy and radiotherapy at specialized hospitals in Delhi.
7. 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 04.04.2026 (Annexure A-8) in light of the Transfer Policy dated 19.12.2024 and Circular dated 11.11.2025.
8. The learned counsel for the respondents fairly submits that the pending representation dated 04.04.2026 shall be considered sympathetically as son of the applicant is diagnosed with cancer and undergoing treatment in Hospitals at Delhi.
9. Heard. We have considered the matter. In view of above submissions and considering the fact of the matter that the impugned transfer Order dated 02.04.2026 qua the applicant is assailed on the violation of the Transfer Policy dated 19.12.2024 and Circular dated 11.11.2025 and personal hardships. The dependent son of the applicant is undergoing treatment for Cancer at specialised hospitals in Delhi and the applicant is also undergoing treatment in ESIC Hospital, Basaidarapur, New Delhi. So also in year 2023, case of the applicant was considered by the Transfer Committee on medical grounds.
10. 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 ABHAY ABHAY CHAUDHARY CHAUDHARY 2026.04.13 10:40:04+05'30' 6 OA No. 1279/2026 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].
11. 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 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".
12. The Division Bench of Hon'ble High Court of Madhya Pradesh in case of R.S. Chaudhary Vs. State of M.P. & Ors, ABHAY ABHAY CHAUDHARY CHAUDHARY 2026.04.13 10:40:04+05'30' 7 OA No. 1279/2026 reported in ILR (2007) MP 1329, held after considering catena of judgments by Hon'ble Supreme Court that in case an order of transfer is assailed on the ground that there has been violation of the Transfer Policy, the proper remedy is to approach the authorities by pointing out the violation and it is expected of the authorities to deal with the same keeping in mind the policy guidelines with utmost objectivity.
13. For all the reasons stated hereinabove, this OA is disposed of at admission stage itself with the following directions to the respondents -
(i) To take decision on pending representation dated 04.04.2026 (Annexure A-8) by considering each contention of the applicant by passing a reasoned and speaking order as expeditiously as practicable.
(ii) The transfer Order dated 02.04.2026 qua the applicant shall not be implemented by the respondents and the applicant shall be allowed to continue at the original place of posting till his pending representation dated 04.04.2026 is decided.
(iii) The decision on applicant's representation shall be communicated to the applicant and if the decision does not come in his favour, in that eventuality, respondents are further directed not to implement the impugned Order qua the applicant for next fifteen days to be counted from the date of communication of the decision to the applicant.
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
ABHAY CHAUDHARY
CHAUDHARY 2026.04.13
10:40:04+05'30'