Central Administrative Tribunal - Chandigarh
Kulvir Mahi vs Employees State Insurance Corporation ... on 11 December, 2025
1
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
CHANDIGARH BENCH
O.A.No. 060/588/2025
Pronounced on : 18.12.2025
(Reserved on : 11.12.2025)
HON'BLE MRS. ANJALI BHAWRA, MEMBER (A)
Kulvir Mahi S/o Sh. Manjeet Raj, aged 36 years, working as Assistant at Sub
Regional Office, Employees State Insurance Corporation (ESIC), Ludhiana,
Punjab.
...Applicant
(Advocate: Sh. Kshitiz Goel)
VERSUS
1. Union of India through its Secretary, Ministry of Labour & Employment,
Shram Shakti Bhawan, Rafi Marg, New Delhi-110001.
2. The Director General, Employees State Insurance Corporation,
Panchdeep Bhawan, Comrade Indrajit Gupta Marg, New Delhi-110002.
3. Director, Regional Office, Punjab, Employees State Insurance
Corporation (ESIC), Sector 19A, Chandigarh-160019.
...Respondent(s)
(Advocate: Sh. K.K. Thakur)
Digitally signed by Satyanarayana
Satyanar Vanapalli
DN: C=IN, O=GOVERNMENT OF
INDIA, OU=CENTRAL
ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, Phone=
ayana 6f592c8349948910e1de6c2931b0bac4
a9bb734425eb6ffc8a5e181f034b2b77,
PostalCode=342006, S=RAJASTHAN,
SERIALNUMBER=
053f205c047576d405aa21e40b02de09
Vanapall 453dd2ea8a478f74d402fb5b47c88e59,
CN=Satyanarayana Vanapalli
Reason: I am the author of this
document
i Location:
Date: 2025.12.19 16:12:18+05'30'
Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.2.0
2
ORDER
HON'BLE MRS. ANJALI BHAWRA, MEMBER (A):
1. This Original Application has been filed under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act 1985, whereby, the applicant has sought for the following relief:
a) This Tribunal may graciously be pleased to call for the records of the case from the respondents.
b) The impugned transfer order dated 30.05.2025 (Annexure A/6) qua applicant be quashed and set aside as the same is in violation of the transfer policy/guidelines, in the interest of justice.
c) The respondents be directed to modify the transfer orders of the applicant by posting him at one of his 10 choice/preference stations submitted by the applicant as per the transfer policy in the interest of justice.
Or Alternatively, the respondents be directed to consider and decide the pending representation dated 01.06.2025 (Annexure A/8) of the applicant, sympathetically whereby the applicant has requested for modification of his transfer orders to his one of his choice station in view of the medical condition of his father, in the interest of justice.
d) The action of the respondents in not posting the applicant at one of his choice station be declared illegal, arbitrary and discriminatory.
e) Any other order or direction deemed fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case to which the applicant are held entitled to may also kindly be issued in favour of the applicant.
d) Costs of the application be awarded to the applicant."
2. The applicant in its OA has submitted the following:-
i) The applicant initially joined service as a Upper Divisional Clerk (UDC) on 29.12.2017 at present place of posting. After a lot of correspondence and RTI Applications, the applicant was promoted as Assistant on 25.8.2022 and he has been working as such at present place of posting. The work and conduct of the applicant has remained upto mark and nothing adverse has ever been communicated to him during his entire service.
Digitally signed by Satyanarayana
Satyanar Vanapalli DN: C=IN, O=GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, OU=CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, Phone= ayana 6f592c8349948910e1de6c2931b0bac4 a9bb734425eb6ffc8a5e181f034b2b77, PostalCode=342006, S=RAJASTHAN, SERIALNUMBER= 053f205c047576d405aa21e40b02de09 Vanapall 453dd2ea8a478f74d402fb5b47c88e59, CN=Satyanarayana Vanapalli Reason: I am the author of this document i Location:
Date: 2025.12.19 16:12:18+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.2.0 3
ii) It is submitted by the applicant that the father of the applicant is a Heart patient and has already undergone Bypass Surgery in the year 2013 at PGIMER, Chandigarh and at present his heart is 20% working and he is undergoing treatment. He has also suffered from multiple Infracts (Dead tissue in Brain) and because of that the father of the applicant has lost his ability to speak and understand and he is totally dependent upon the applicant being sole son. Sometimes he needs immediate care in the middle of night as he falls unconscious sometime. The mother of the applicant is suffering from Asthma for last 40 years and she is also suffering from other ailments. The wife of the applicant is a Teacher at KC Public School in the City of Nawanshahar. The applicant has one minor child of 10 months and parents as well as wife of the applicant are residing at Nawanshahar. Copy of the Medical Reports of the father of the applicant are annexed as Annexure A/1.
iii) Keeping in view of the medical condition of the father of the applicant, he submitted a representation to the respondents on 24.8.2023 (Annexure A/2) and requested the respondents to consider his request for posting at Branch Office, Nawanshahar. The application of the applicant was forwarded to the respondent no.3. But thereafter no action was taken by the respondents. The transfer Drive for the year 2025 vide Circular dated 16.3.2025 (Annexure A/3), wherein in terms of para 5.2 of the transfer Policy dated 10.01.2025 the respondents asked for online 10 preference/choice stations from the employees including applicant.
The choice stations were to be submitted between 19.03.2026 to 26.3.2025 along with the uploaded documents. The applicant vide his application dated 21.03.2025 (Annexure A/4) requested to the respondents to consider his request for posting at Nawanshahar at his own request keeping medical condition of his father and mother etc., but the same remained without any Digitally signed by Satyanarayana Satyanar Vanapalli DN: C=IN, O=GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, OU=CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, Phone= ayana 6f592c8349948910e1de6c2931b0bac4 a9bb734425eb6ffc8a5e181f034b2b77, PostalCode=342006, S=RAJASTHAN, SERIALNUMBER= 053f205c047576d405aa21e40b02de09 Vanapall 453dd2ea8a478f74d402fb5b47c88e59, CN=Satyanarayana Vanapalli Reason: I am the author of this document i Location:
Date: 2025.12.19 16:12:18+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.2.0 4 response till date. Thereafter, in compliance to the circular dated 16.03.2025, the applicant filled his online transfer form wherein he mentioned his 10 choice stations like Nawanshhar, Phagwara, Jalandhar, Ropar, Hoshiarpur, Ludhiana etc, wherein number of vacancies were available with the respondents and the applicant mentioned reason for such choice stations ie. critical medical conditions of the parents of the applicant and also keeping in view the spouse ground. The applicant attached/ uploaded documents with the form (Annexure A/5). Number of vacancies at the choice stations of the applicant were/ are available.
iv) It is submitted by the applicant that despite availability of vacancies at the 10 choice stations of the applicant, the respondents vide orders dated 30.05.2025 (Annexure A/6), transferred the applicant to ESIC, Hospital, Ludhiana. The name of the applicant is mentioned at Sr. no. 37 of the transfer order dated 30.05.2025. The applicant submitted his 10 choice stations, whereas despite availability of vacancies at his choice station, the respondents arbitrarily posted him to a non-choice station. The respondents have posted all other employees at their choice station and the applicant has not been posted at his choice stations. Such an action of the respondents is not only discriminatory but rather illegal and arbitrary. Even the respondents have posted the employees at the choice stations of the applicant, who have never opted for such choice stations. The purpose of asking of choice stations from the employee seems to be defeated. The respondents have issued a Transfer policy dated 10.01.2025 (Annexure A/7) on the subject" Transfer/posting policy of officials on the Administrative side of ESIC Drawing scale of pay correspondence to Group-C officials of the Central Government. The para 04 of the transfer policy states about the minimum and maximum tenure. The para 4.3 of the transfer policy states that the maximum tenure at a station shall be 10 years Digitally signed by Satyanarayana Satyanar Vanapalli DN: C=IN, O=GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, OU=CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, Phone= ayana 6f592c8349948910e1de6c2931b0bac4 a9bb734425eb6ffc8a5e181f034b2b77, PostalCode=342006, S=RAJASTHAN, SERIALNUMBER= 053f205c047576d405aa21e40b02de09 Vanapall 453dd2ea8a478f74d402fb5b47c88e59, CN=Satyanarayana Vanapalli Reason: I am the author of this document i Location:
Date: 2025.12.19 16:12:18+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.2.0 5 and maximum tenure at on office shall be 05 years. The relevant part of para 4 is re-produced as under.
"4.1 All transfer/ postings of official(s) shall normally be for a period not less than three years, provided there is no serious complaint of misconduct or misdemeanor against the official: or it is expedient in public interest to transfer him her before completion of minimum tenure. 4.2 No official shall remain attached to a post identified as sensitive, for more than three years in accordance with instructions issued by Central Vigilance Commission (CVC). Compliance of rotation between sensitive and non-sensitive posts shall be ensured by the Controlling Officer/ Head of the Office.
4.3 Maximum tenure at a station shall be 10 (Ten) years and the maximum tenure at an office shall be 5 (five) years. However, in case there is only 1 (one) office institution at a station, no official will stay at the station for more than 5 (five) years. In the case of posts identified as sensitive, the provisions contained at clause 4.2 above shall be applicable; as such the official may be rotated from a sensitive post to a non-sensitive post as per rules."
Para 5 of the transfer policy dated 10.01.2025 pertains to Annual General Transfers. As per the policy the annual general transfer will be done once a year and the Annual General transfer which consist of two type transfer one is Tenure Completion transfer (those who have completed or will be completing the prescribed maximum tenure on 31 March of the year) and another is request transfer (those who have completed or going to complete minimum three years tenure as on 31 March). Para 5.3 of the transfer policy states that the official shall have to submit their online application and submit their 10 stations in order of preference.
v) Aggrieved by the transfer orders dated 30.05.2025, the applicant submitted a detailed representation on 01.06.2025 (Annexure A/8) to the respondents and requested for modification of the transfer orders to one of his choice stations keeping in view the medical condition of his parents and further keeping in view the spouse case and on other various grounds. But the representation of the applicant has remained without any response till date. The applicant has been submitting applications to the respondents for Digitally signed by Satyanarayana Satyanar Vanapalli DN: C=IN, O=GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, OU=CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, Phone= ayana 6f592c8349948910e1de6c2931b0bac4 a9bb734425eb6ffc8a5e181f034b2b77, PostalCode=342006, S=RAJASTHAN, SERIALNUMBER= 053f205c047576d405aa21e40b02de09 Vanapall 453dd2ea8a478f74d402fb5b47c88e59, CN=Satyanarayana Vanapalli Reason: I am the author of this document i Location:
Date: 2025.12.19 16:12:18+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.2.0 6 posting him at Nawashahar since 2023 and the application of the applicant was forwarded to the respondent no.3 but no action was taken by the respondents. The applicant submitted application dated 21.03.2025 to the respondents for transfer him to Nawahshahar but no action was taken by the respondents. The applicant submitted 10 choice stations to the respondents, whereas instead of posting him at one of his choice station, the respondents have posted him in the ESIC Hospital, Ludhiana. No doubt, the applicant has been posted by the respondents in Ludhiana itself but in the Hospitals working days are six days a week whereas SROs remains working for a period of 05 days a week and keeping in view the medical condition of the father of the applicant it will be very difficult for the applicant to take care of his old aged father who is suffering from a serious disease. At this stage he needs care. The applicant has requested for posting and submitted his 10 choice stations (being working for a five days a week), but no action has been taken by the respondents and even while passing the impugned orders, the respondents have failed to consider the same.
vi) Once, the applicant has submitted his 10 choice stations in terms of the circular and para 5.2, 5.3 of the transfer policy, therefore, it was incumbent upon the respondents to consider and post the applicant at his one of his choice stations, whereas while passing the impugned orders, the respondents have posted the applicant at a non-choice station. Such an action on the part of the respondents is wholly illegal, arbitrary and same deserves to be quashed and set aside. The vacancies at his some choice stations are still available with the respondents. The applicant is not seeking that he be allowed to continue at the present place of posting/office rather he be considered and posted at one of his choice station. The respondents have posted all the employees at their choice stations, whereas the applicant Digitally signed by Satyanarayana Satyanar Vanapalli DN: C=IN, O=GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, OU=CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, Phone= ayana 6f592c8349948910e1de6c2931b0bac4 a9bb734425eb6ffc8a5e181f034b2b77, PostalCode=342006, S=RAJASTHAN, SERIALNUMBER= 053f205c047576d405aa21e40b02de09 Vanapall 453dd2ea8a478f74d402fb5b47c88e59, CN=Satyanarayana Vanapalli Reason: I am the author of this document i Location:
Date: 2025.12.19 16:12:18+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.2.0 7 has been discriminated despite availabilities of vacancies at the choice stations of the applicant. The purpose of asking choice station seems to be become redundant in the present case as once the vacancies are available at the choice station of the applicant, therefore, it was incumbent upon the respondents to post the applicant at one of his choice station.
vii) Further, it is stated by the applicant that the applicant has been submitting requests and applications to the respondents since 2023 for posting at another station, whereas his requests have remained without any response. Further, in the AGT-2025, he submitted his 10 choice stations as per the transfer policy and circular issued by the respondents and he has been posted at a non-choice station despite availabilities of vacancies at choice station of the applicant. No doubt one cannot claim posting at a particular station as a matter of right, whereas in the present case the applicant has submitted his mandatory 10 choice stations, therefore, it was incumbent upon the respondents to consider and post the applicant one of his choice station out of 10 choice station. While passing the impugned order dated 30.05.2025 (Annexure A/6) qua applicant, the respondents have failed to consider the fact that the father of the applicant is suffering from heart disease and his heart is functioning only 20%. The right to life has been considered as fundamental right under the Constitution of the India and in the present case the same seems to be infringed as the ESIC, Hospital is 06 days working, whereas Branch office and SRO Offices are working for 05 days only and it will become very difficult for the applicant to take care of his father, who at this stage need regular attendance and medical care and the applicant is only son in the family to take care of him.
Moreover, the applicant has been requesting the respondents to consider his request for posting at Nawanshahar w.e.f. 2023 keeping in view medical Digitally signed by Satyanarayana Satyanar Vanapalli DN: C=IN, O=GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, OU=CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, Phone= ayana 6f592c8349948910e1de6c2931b0bac4 a9bb734425eb6ffc8a5e181f034b2b77, PostalCode=342006, S=RAJASTHAN, SERIALNUMBER= 053f205c047576d405aa21e40b02de09 Vanapall 453dd2ea8a478f74d402fb5b47c88e59, CN=Satyanarayana Vanapalli Reason: I am the author of this document i Location:
Date: 2025.12.19 16:12:18+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.2.0 8 condition of his father and old aged ailing mother, whereas the same has not been on considered by the respondents even in August 2025.
viii) The spouse of the applicant has been working as Teacher in Private School at Nawanshahar. In para 7.4 of the transfer policy it has been mentioned that the DoPT OMs to be followed revised from time to time, while passing the impugned dated 30.05.2025 the respondents have violated the DoPT OMs/instructions for unification of spouses for better life and better nurturing of their children. Initially, guidelines were issued in 1986 so that the husband and wife can live a unified life together without any sacrifice of their career, growth and development. Therefore, in order to keep everything aligned various additions were made to maintain harmony and balance of work life between the spouses. The reference is made to the OMs dated 03.04.1986, 12.06.1997, 30.9.2009 and 224.11.2022. The respondents have violation the OM dated 3.4.1986, 12.06.1997, 30.9.2009 and 24.11.2022. The respondents have completely bye passed the procedure laid down in the transfer policy and OMs issued by the Govt of India (Annexure A-10(Colly).
ix) The impugned transfer order in not posting the applicant at one of his choice station, is just counter blast on the part of the respondents to the earlier correspondence raised by the applicant claiming promotion to the post of Assistant and because of that the respondents have not posted the applicant at one of his choice station. There is malafide on the part of the respondents while passing the impugned orders and the respondents have accommodated/posted the employees at their choice stations, whereas, the applicant has been discriminated and made scapegoat. The applications submitted by the applicant claiming promotion as Assistant is annexed as Annexure A-11 (Colly). The applicant is General Secretary to the SC/ST Association and in the present case this is also one of the reason for not Digitally signed by Satyanarayana Satyanar Vanapalli DN: C=IN, O=GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, OU=CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, Phone= ayana 6f592c8349948910e1de6c2931b0bac4 a9bb734425eb6ffc8a5e181f034b2b77, PostalCode=342006, S=RAJASTHAN, SERIALNUMBER= 053f205c047576d405aa21e40b02de09 Vanapall 453dd2ea8a478f74d402fb5b47c88e59, CN=Satyanarayana Vanapalli Reason: I am the author of this document i Location:
Date: 2025.12.19 16:12:18+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.2.0 9 posting the applicant at one of his choice station despite availability of vacancies. Once, the vacancies at his choice stations are available, therefore, it was incumbent upon the respondents to post the applicant at one of his choice station. The transfer policy has been framed by the respondents for transparency in the posting and transfers of the employees, whereas once, there is a clause for asking of 10 choice stations and accordingly the applicant submitted his 10 choice stations, whereas despite availability of vacancies at his choice preference stations, the action of the respondents in not posting him at one of his choice posting is wholly illegal, arbitrary and unjustified.
x) He further submitted that no doubt the present is a annual general, transfer, whereas in the present case the applicant who has completed 07 years at present place of posting has been posted, whereas number of employees posted at Chandigarh, RO. Office namely Varinder Bhardwaj etc, who have completed more than 10 years at the same stations have been ignored by the respondents. This shows that the respondents have adopted the policy of pick and choose while issuing the posting orders. The transfer policy is universally applicable to all the employees, therefore, the respondents has passed the impugned transfer order in a discriminatory manner. The Govt. of India, DoPT issued OM dated 06.06.2014, wherein, it has been clearly mentioned that:
"3. Considering that the Government employee, who has disabled child serve as the main care giver of such child any displacement of such Government employees will have a bearing on the systematic rehabilitation of the disabled child since the new environment/set up could prove to be a hindrance for the rehabilitation process of the child. Therefore, a Government servant who is also a care giver of disabled child may be exempted from the routine exercise of transfer/rotational transfer subject to the administrative constraints.
With the enactment of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 on 17.04.2017, the DoPT issued O.M. No. 42011/3/2014-Estt. (Res) dated 08.10.2018 (Annexure A/12) again exempting a Government employee who is a care-giver of dependent daughter/son/parents/spouse/brother/sister Digitally signed by Satyanarayana Satyanar Vanapalli DN: C=IN, O=GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, OU=CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, Phone= ayana 6f592c8349948910e1de6c2931b0bac4 a9bb734425eb6ffc8a5e181f034b2b77, PostalCode=342006, S=RAJASTHAN, SERIALNUMBER= 053f205c047576d405aa21e40b02de09 Vanapall 453dd2ea8a478f74d402fb5b47c88e59, CN=Satyanarayana Vanapalli Reason: I am the author of this document i Location:
Date: 2025.12.19 16:12:18+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.2.0 10 with Specified Disability, as certified by the certifying authority as a Person with Benchmark Disability as defined under Section 21 of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 from the routine exercise of transfer/rotational transfer subject to the administrative constraints. In the present case, the father of the applicant is completely dependent upon the applicant and is a heart patient having his heart 20% functioning only. The respondents could have exercised their discretionary powers while passing the impugned order. The vacancies with the respondents at the choice stations of the applicant are available and even clear vacancies at Ludhiana etc are available with the respondents i.e. against 55 sanctioned strength 32 employees are posted. Further, the vacancies at other station of the applicant are also available with the respondents.
3. Notice was issued to the respondents. The written statement has been submitted by the respondents wherein the following has been indicated:-
i) The respondents in their written statement has made reference to:-
a) Electricity Board & Anr. Vs. Atmaram Sungomall Poshani, reported in AIR 1989 SC 1433.
b) Shilpi Bose Vs. State of Bihar, reported in AIR 1991 SC 532.
c) Union of India & Ors. Vs. S.L. Abbas, reported in 1993 4 SCC 357.
d) State of Madhya Pradesh & Anr. Vs. S.S. Kourav & Ors., reported in AIR 1995 SC 1056.
e) Dalip Singh Vs. State of UP, reported in (2010) 2 SCC 114.
f) Union of India & Ors. Vs. H.K. Kirtania, reported in 1998 AIR 1774.
ii) It has been submitted in the written statement that although, there exists no provision mandating consideration of representations as per transfer policy, the representation submitted by the applicant, along with those received from other individuals, has nonetheless been examined in the interest of fairness and transparency. Examination of the Representation Digitally signed by Satyanarayana Satyanar Vanapalli DN: C=IN, O=GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, OU=CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, Phone= ayana 6f592c8349948910e1de6c2931b0bac4 a9bb734425eb6ffc8a5e181f034b2b77, PostalCode=342006, S=RAJASTHAN, SERIALNUMBER= 053f205c047576d405aa21e40b02de09 Vanapall 453dd2ea8a478f74d402fb5b47c88e59, CN=Satyanarayana Vanapalli Reason: I am the author of this document i Location:
Date: 2025.12.19 16:12:18+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.2.0 11 of official in view of the objections raised vis-a- vis the provisions of AGT policy: -
1. The spouse is not a Govt. employee thus DOPT guidelines on spouse cases do not apply. Other grounds regarding the health condition of parents have been cited by many officials along with relevant proofs. But the same cannot be a primary criteria for deciding transfer/postings.
2. Regarding the non-consideration of opted priority stations All priority stations under SRO Jalandhar were not considered as after the adjustment of mandatory transfer employees, there was no vacancy in Assistant cadre at SRO Jalandhar.
3. Several representations were received post-AGT, none of which raised allegations of caste-based discrimination or personal vendetta. It appears that the official is attempting to undermine the validity of the entire process by making unfounded allegations.
4. The dissatisfaction expressed by the official seems to stem from a perceived difference in the number of working days at the hospital (6 days) compared to the SRO (5 days). From an administrative standpoint, such considerations do not constitute valid grounds for transfer or posting decisions.
5. Upon thorough examination, it is found that nothing material is in the submissions of the applicant which would indicate any element of injustice or arbitrariness on the part of the Administration. The action of the Administration has remained consistent with respect to officials due for transfer, and there has been no deviation from the policy or procedure, to the detriment of the applicant, as is being alleged by him. Hence the representation of the official stands rejected.
Hence the representation of the official stands rejected.
iii) The representation submitted by the applicant was received on 24/08/2023, at which time the Branch Office Nawanshahr had not yet commenced operations. Accordingly, the application was put up with the remark that necessary action would be initiated once the office became operational. Subsequently, the Branch Office Nawanshahr was inaugurated on 04/11/2024. Earlier on 19/07/2022, the sanctioned strength for the Branch Office had been communicated by Headquarters, as follows:
Branch Manager (BM)-01 Upper Division Clerk (UDC)-01 Multi-Tasking Staff (MTS)-01 Digitally signed by Satyanarayana Satyanar Vanapalli DN: C=IN, O=GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, OU=CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, Phone= ayana 6f592c8349948910e1de6c2931b0bac4 a9bb734425eb6ffc8a5e181f034b2b77, PostalCode=342006, S=RAJASTHAN, SERIALNUMBER= 053f205c047576d405aa21e40b02de09 Vanapall 453dd2ea8a478f74d402fb5b47c88e59, CN=Satyanarayana Vanapalli Reason: I am the author of this document i Location:
Date: 2025.12.19 16:12:18+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.2.0 12 As per the sanctioned strength, a UDC was to be posted at the Nawanshahr office. A request for posting of a UDC had also been received. Sh. Kulveer Mahi was an assistant and due to the lack of sanction of the assistant post, UDC was posted there.
iv) The organizational interest shall be given highest consideration and administrative requirements shall be paramount while considering any transfer as per transfer policy. Hence, transfer to a particular station/ office cannot be claimed as a matter of right and shall be subject to administrative feasibility. The Request Transfer shall not be a matter of right and shall be subject to administrative feasibility. All priority stations under SRO Jalandhar were not considered as after the adjustment of mandatory transfer of employees, there was no vacancy in Assistant cadre at SRO Jalandhar, it is also pertinent to put forth that the applicant belongs to a senior cadre, and his services are required at the present place of posting, i.e., the ESIC hospital, Ludhiana which has recently been transformed into a Medical College & Hospital and is currently at a crucial stage of formative phase.
v) Further, it is averred by the respondents that several representations were received post-AGT, none of which raised allegations of caste-based discrimination or personal vendetta. It appears that the official is attempting to undermine the validity of the entire process by making unfounded allegations. All priority stations under SRO Jalandhar were not considered as after the adjustment of mandatory transfer of employees, there was no vacancy in Assistant cadre at SRO Jalandhar. It shall be the endeavour of the Competent authority to make alternate postings between various Units/ Offices within the region so as to provide exposure to all the officials of different facets of its functioning. Hence, the applicant has been posted Digitally signed by Satyanarayana Satyanar Vanapalli DN: C=IN, O=GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, OU=CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, Phone= ayana 6f592c8349948910e1de6c2931b0bac4 a9bb734425eb6ffc8a5e181f034b2b77, PostalCode=342006, S=RAJASTHAN, SERIALNUMBER= 053f205c047576d405aa21e40b02de09 Vanapall 453dd2ea8a478f74d402fb5b47c88e59, CN=Satyanarayana Vanapalli Reason: I am the author of this document i Location:
Date: 2025.12.19 16:12:18+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.2.0 13 in accordance with organizational interest and administrative requirements. As per clause 6.1 of transfer policy, the Competent Authority for smooth functioning of the offices of Corporation and in public interest may transfer any official in the mid of the year on account of administrative exigencies, Further, Organizational Interest shall be given highest consideration during the transfer and posting and administrative requirements shall be paramount while considering any transfer as per this policy. The applicant is misleading the court as the health condition of parents have been cited by many officials and with relevant proofs, but the same cannot be a primary criteria for deciding transfer/postings. After the adjustment of mandatory transfer of employees, there was no vacancy in Assistant cadre at SRO Jalandhar. Therefore, the respondents prayed that this OA may be dismissed with costs.
4. The applicant has filed rejoinder wherein the applicant reiterated the contents of the O.A and emphasized on following submissions:
i) The judgment cited herein is not applicable to the case of the applicant since the transfer is not being done in public interest and for efficiency of administration but the same is being done against the transfer policy dated 10.01.2025 and the circular dated 16.03.2025 issued by the respondents.
The respondents have issued the transfer order of applicant by violating the AGT clause 2.vii, 5.2, 5.3, 7.6, 10.3 & clause 13 along with violation of article 14 & 16 of the constitution as explained in the chart of policy violation statement. The respondents have not rejected the 10-choice station of the application but they have posted him in such a manner so that the applicant won't be able to apply for transfer for another 3 years and the respondents are trying to bound the applicant at Ludhiana station for another 3 years with malafide intentions. The applicant joined the Sub Regional Office ESIC Ludhiana, Punjab on 29.12.2017 as an upper divisional clerk and thereafter Digitally signed by Satyanarayana Satyanar Vanapalli DN: C=IN, O=GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, OU=CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, Phone= ayana 6f592c8349948910e1de6c2931b0bac4 a9bb734425eb6ffc8a5e181f034b2b77, PostalCode=342006, S=RAJASTHAN, SERIALNUMBER= 053f205c047576d405aa21e40b02de09 Vanapall 453dd2ea8a478f74d402fb5b47c88e59, CN=Satyanarayana Vanapalli Reason: I am the author of this document i Location:
Date: 2025.12.19 16:12:18+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.2.0 14 promoted as Assistant on 25.08.2022, at the same place of posting. Thereafter vide circular dated 16.03.2025, a transfer drive for the year 2025 was carried and the applicant was asked to give 10 preference choice stations for the posting as per the transfer policy dated 10.01.2025.
ii) It is submitted by the applicant that vide the impugned order, the applicant has not been transferred to the aforesaid choices of posting.
whereas he has been transferred to some other accounting unit, despite availability of vacancies with the respondent at the choice stations. The impugned order is being passed in violation of the policy and the instructions dated 16.03.2025. Clause 5.2 (II) provides that a request transfer can be made on any ground from the official who have completed or going to complete minimum tenure of 3 years in a station and clause 5.2 provides that the official have to file online application through designated online portal for transfer to station of their choice up to 10 stations in order of preference. It further provides that option for choice station once exercised, shall be final. Meaning thereby giving of 10 choice stations is prerequisite for annual general transfer. In the present case, the applicant has been transferred beyond the choice of 10 choice station despite there being a vacancy at such 10 chosen stations. The act of the respondents amounts to hostile discrimination, because despite of having multiple vacancies at the choice station of the applicant, the department has accommodated the employees, with the prior posting at the same station, which is in violation of Clause 7.6 and 10.3 of the policy dated 10.01.2025. Employee such as Sh. Anuj Kumar (149211) and Sh. Balraj (150602) who already served at Jalandhar and Hoshiarpur respectively were accommodated at those very stations, while the applicant, who never served there, was denied such consideration.
Digitally signed by Satyanarayana Satyanar Vanapalli DN: C=IN, O=GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, OU=CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, Phone= ayana 6f592c8349948910e1de6c2931b0bac4 a9bb734425eb6ffc8a5e181f034b2b77, PostalCode=342006, S=RAJASTHAN, SERIALNUMBER= 053f205c047576d405aa21e40b02de09 Vanapall 453dd2ea8a478f74d402fb5b47c88e59, CN=Satyanarayana Vanapalli Reason: I am the author of this document i Location:
Date: 2025.12.19 16:12:18+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.2.0 15
iii) The Impugned Transfer order is also bad in the light of Clause 13 of the policy dated 10.01.2025 which provides that the SRO Incharge is the competent authority to transfer from one office to another office, within the jurisdiction of sub regional office, but in the case of the applicant, the impugned order has been passed by the regional office, meaning thereby the Impugned order is being passed by the office, which was having no jurisdiction as per the above mentioned policy. Even though the transfer order from the ESIC SRO Ludhiana to ESIC Model Hospital and College Ludhiana are the local transfer orders, but these orders have changed the accounting unit of the applicant. Reading of Clause 3.6 (b) along with Clause 4 of the policy dated 10.01.2025 confirms that the department can deny further transfer requests of the applicant for continuous period of 3 years, because the applicant now will not be able to complete minimum tenure at the new accounting unit. The same is being done, despite the fact that the applicant has aged old parents with disability and he is being punished for raising his voice qua his promotion to the assistant in the year 2021 & 2022.
iv) Further, in a case of Smt. Neelam Vs. UOI & Ors., in OA No.696/2025, decided on 14.07.2025 (Annexure A/13) with a direction to the respondents to consider her representation on medical grounds, pursuant to which, her transfer was modified vide speaking order dated 08.08.2025 (Annexure A/14) to one of her choice stations, however in the case of the applicant, despite having stronger grounds i.e. spouse posted at Nawanshehar, father's and mother's chronic ailments, no such considerations were shown. The same violates article 14 and 16 of the constitution of India 1950. The grounds have been submitted by the applicant to the respondents vide representation dated 28.08.2025 (Annexure A/15) during the pendency of the case. Therefore, the applicant prayed that the OA filed by the applicant is liable to be allowed. Digitally signed by Satyanarayana Satyanar Vanapalli DN: C=IN, O=GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, OU=CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, Phone= ayana 6f592c8349948910e1de6c2931b0bac4 a9bb734425eb6ffc8a5e181f034b2b77, PostalCode=342006, S=RAJASTHAN, SERIALNUMBER= 053f205c047576d405aa21e40b02de09 Vanapall 453dd2ea8a478f74d402fb5b47c88e59, CN=Satyanarayana Vanapalli Reason: I am the author of this document i Location:
Date: 2025.12.19 16:12:18+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.2.0 16
5. Reply to the Rejoinder has been filed by the respondents, the following has been indicated:-
i) The allegation of misleading by the applicant is strongly refuted, as the fact placed by the respondents are based upon the record available in office.
The transfer of the applicant is in public interest and according to the provisions contained in the transfer policy dated 10.01.2025. The contention of the applicant that he has been posted in such a manner that he won't be able to apply for transfer for another 3 years is wrong and hence denied. Para 5.2.ii of AGT Policy is reproduced hereunder:-
"Request for transfer on any ground from the officials who have completed or going to complete minimum tenure of 3(three) years in a station as on 31st March of the transfer year irrespective of Accounting Unit. Request Transfer shall not be a matter of right and shall be subject to administrative feasibility."
However, in the present case, station of the applicant has not been changed during said transfer. He has merely been transferred to another office/accounting unit at the same station under the provisions of Para 4.3 of AGT Policy. Hence, as per policy, the request for transfer on any ground from the officials, who have completed or going to complete 3 years in a station can be made. However, request transfer shall not be a matter of right and shall be subject to administrative feasibility.
ii) Further, while issuing the transfer orders, of the officials alongside the applicant each and every provision, guidelines, etc contained in the AGT is followed. The allegation of the applicant is strongly refuted. Para No. 13 of AGT policy specifies the competent authority for the AGT policy, the following has been indicated:-
"The Competent Authority for the purpose of this transfer policy shall be the Regional Director of the Regional Office concerned for transfer from one accounting unit to another accounting unit within the Region and from one office to another office within the jurisdiction of Regional Office".
Digitally signed by Satyanarayana
Satyanar Vanapalli DN: C=IN, O=GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, OU=CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, Phone= ayana 6f592c8349948910e1de6c2931b0bac4 a9bb734425eb6ffc8a5e181f034b2b77, PostalCode=342006, S=RAJASTHAN, SERIALNUMBER= 053f205c047576d405aa21e40b02de09 Vanapall 453dd2ea8a478f74d402fb5b47c88e59, CN=Satyanarayana Vanapalli Reason: I am the author of this document i Location:
Date: 2025.12.19 16:12:18+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.2.0 17 Thus, the Regional Director is the competent authority to transfer an employee from one accounting unit to another accounting unit. The submission of the applicant is false and misleading in this regard. Though, the provisions contained in the AGT para 5.2.ii. clearly stipulates, completion of a minimum tenure of 3 (three) years in a station as on 31st March of the transfer year irrespective of Accounting Unit.
iii) It is further averred by the respondents in the written statement thaty the applicant is attempting to mislead this Tribunal, because as per policy, request transfer can be made after completion of minimum tenure of 3 years in a station and not that at Accounting Unit. However, request transfer shall not be a matter of right and shall be subject to administrative feasibility. The spouse is not a Govt. employee, thus, DOPT guidelines on spouse cases do not apply. Other grounds regarding the health condition of parents have been cited by many officials along with relevant proofs, but the same cannot be a primary criterion for deciding transfer/postings.
Considering of such grounds may lead to submissions of representations by other officials too, as there are number of employees having their spouses working in private sector. The applicant is making misleading and inaccurate statements before this Tribunal.
6. Heard counsel for the applicant and counsel for the respondents and have gone through the pleadings and averments made in this case.
7. The main point in this case is:
i) The choice stations of the applicant has not been considered by the respondents in AGT-2025 whereas he has been transferred to another establishment of ESIC within District Ludiana.
ii) Although, the applicant has been placed in the same station, however, now he has to work 06 days a week at the new place of posting at Ludhiana. Digitally signed by Satyanarayana
Satyanar Vanapalli DN: C=IN, O=GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, OU=CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, Phone= ayana 6f592c8349948910e1de6c2931b0bac4 a9bb734425eb6ffc8a5e181f034b2b77, PostalCode=342006, S=RAJASTHAN, SERIALNUMBER= 053f205c047576d405aa21e40b02de09 Vanapall 453dd2ea8a478f74d402fb5b47c88e59, CN=Satyanarayana Vanapalli Reason: I am the author of this document i Location:
Date: 2025.12.19 16:12:18+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.2.0 18
iii) On the other hand as per respondents and the perusal of the facts in the paper book clearly states that when the Branch Office at Nawanshahr when it was inaugurated had sanctioned strength of Branch Manager (BM)-
01, Upper Division Clerk (UDC)-01 and Multi Tasking Staff (MTS)-01 and since the applicant is an Assistant cannot be posted against the post of UDC.
iv) Further as per the respondents the organizational requirement staff has to be given priority over the choice options asked by the Government, and he has been placed at a newly set up the ESIC hospital, Ludhiana which has recently been transformed into a Medical College & Hospital and is currently at a crucial stage of formative phase.
In view of this, he has being posted at the same place of station where he was working earlier for 5 days a week.
v) The other contention raised by the applicant that the concerned order has not been issued by the competent authority has been rebutted are referred to:-
Para No. 13 of AGT policy which specifies the competent authority for the AGT policy, the following has been indicated:-
"The Competent Authority for the purpose of this transfer policy shall be the Regional Director of the Regional Office concerned for transfer from one accounting unit to another accounting unit within the Region and from one office to another office within the jurisdiction of Regional Office".
The other apprehension of the applicant is that he will not be able to apply for transfer for another 3 years has been contradicted by the respondents stating that as per the policy the request for transfer on any ground from the officials, who have completed or going to complete 3 years in a station can be made. However, request transfer shall not be a matter of right and shall be subject to administrative feasibility. As per policy, request transfer can be made after completion of minimum tenure of 3 years in a station and not that at accounting unit. Digitally signed by Satyanarayana Satyanar Vanapalli DN: C=IN, O=GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, OU=CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, Phone= ayana 6f592c8349948910e1de6c2931b0bac4 a9bb734425eb6ffc8a5e181f034b2b77, PostalCode=342006, S=RAJASTHAN, SERIALNUMBER= 053f205c047576d405aa21e40b02de09 Vanapall 453dd2ea8a478f74d402fb5b47c88e59, CN=Satyanarayana Vanapalli Reason: I am the author of this document i Location:
Date: 2025.12.19 16:12:18+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.2.0 19
vi) The spouse of the applicant is not a government servant thus DOPT guidelines on spouse ground do not apply and because of the organizational requirement the other points raised by him cannot be considered. After adjustment of mandatory transfer of employees according to respondents there was no vacancy in Assistant cadre at SRO Jalandhar. The respondents have also considered his representation and have rejected the same.
8. In view of the aforesaid facts on record, the Tribunal is of the view that in an organization public interest is of prime importance. As stated that the ESIC hospital Ludhiana the requirement of staff was necessary. Further, in this case, the station of the applicant has not been changed. Now, he has to work instead of 6 days because of the organizational requirement and in public interest where it has been stated that the ESIC hospital, Ludhiana which has recently been transformed into a Medical College & Hospital and is currently at a crucial stage of formative phase.
9. In view of this, although he has been posted at the same place of station where earlier he has to work 6 days a week and now he job requirement of 6 days of week. This is for the organization to see where the priority of placement of the staff is there and the Tribunal is of the view that this cannot be interfered with in view of the organizational requirement and public interest.
10. In view of the aforesaid and facts on record and brought before the Tribunal during the hearing the Tribunal is of the considered view that in this case the station of the applicant has not been changed and he has been posted at a place in ESIC hospital, Ludhiana which has recently been transformed into a Medical College and Hospital and is currently at a crucial stage of formative phase, though this requires the functioning of 06 days a week.
Digitally signed by Satyanarayana Satyanar Vanapalli DN: C=IN, O=GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, OU=CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, Phone= ayana 6f592c8349948910e1de6c2931b0bac4 a9bb734425eb6ffc8a5e181f034b2b77, PostalCode=342006, S=RAJASTHAN, SERIALNUMBER= 053f205c047576d405aa21e40b02de09 Vanapall 453dd2ea8a478f74d402fb5b47c88e59, CN=Satyanarayana Vanapalli Reason: I am the author of this document i Location:
Date: 2025.12.19 16:12:18+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.2.0 20
11. Further as submitted by the respondents under the Annual General Transfer Policy, the applicant is at liberty to apply again for transfer to his choice postings in the next round in view of the aforesaid submissions of the respondents as indicated in Para 7.
12. In view of the aforesaid, the Tribunal finds no reason to interfere in the order passed by the respondents and thus the OA filed in this case by the applicant being devoid of any merits, the same is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs.
(ANJALI BHAWRA) MEMBER (A) /sv/ Digitally signed by Satyanarayana Satyanar Vanapalli DN: C=IN, O=GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, OU=CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, Phone= ayana 6f592c8349948910e1de6c2931b0bac4 a9bb734425eb6ffc8a5e181f034b2b77, PostalCode=342006, S=RAJASTHAN, SERIALNUMBER= 053f205c047576d405aa21e40b02de09 Vanapall 453dd2ea8a478f74d402fb5b47c88e59, CN=Satyanarayana Vanapalli Reason: I am the author of this document i Location:
Date: 2025.12.19 16:12:18+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.2.0