Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Kedar Singh vs Employees State Insurance Corporation ... on 10 April, 2026
Central Administrative Tribunal
Principal Bench, New Delhi
(Nainital Circuit Sitting)
O.A. No. 2887/2025
Order reserved on: 20.03.2026.
Order pronounced on: 10.04.2026.
Hon'ble Mr. Ajay Pratap Singh, Member (J)
Hon'ble Mr. Rajinder Kashyap, Member (A)
Kedar Singh
S/o Sh. Bhagwan Singh,
R/o Farm No. 3, Neelanchal Colony,
Near Ananda Academy, Haldwani,
Nainital, Uttrakhand-263139
Post: Assistant Director (Ad-hoc)
Group-B ...Applicant
(By Advocate: Mr. Vikram Singh Nayal with Mr. Dushyant
Bhargava)
VERSUS
1. Employee State Insurance Corporation
Through its Director General
Panchdeep Bhawan, Comrade Indrajeet Gupta Marg,
New Delhi-110002.
Email: [email protected]
2. Insurance Commissioner
(Personnel & Administration)
ESIC, HQ Office Panchdeep Bhawan,
Comrade Indrajeet Gupta Marg,
New Delhi-110002.
Email: [email protected]
...Respondents
(By Advocate: Mr. Amit Chawla)
NEETU Digitally signed by
NEETU SHARMA
SHARMADate: 2026.04.18
11:47:08+05'30'
2
OA No. 2887/2025
ORDER
Hon'ble Mr. Rajinder Kashyap, Member (A):
By filing the present O.A. under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, the applicant has sought the following reliefs: -
"(a) To Quash and set aside the impugned relieving order dated 17.07.2025 and Transfer order dated 28.03.2025 issued by the Respondent No. 1 transferring the Applicant from ESIC Hospital, Rudrapur, i.e., Regional Office Dehradun, Uttarakhand, to Regional Office, Tamil Nadu in the interest of justice;
(b) To Quash and set aside the impugned speaking order/minutes/decision of NLC dated 09.07.2025 issued by the NLC reconstituted by Respondent No. 1 thereby upholding the transfer of the Applicant from ESIC Hospital, Rudrapur, i.e., Regional Office Dehradun, Uttarakhand, to Regional Office, Tamil Nadu in the interest of justice.
(c) To direct the Respondents to allow the Applicant to continue at his present station in accordance with Clause 4.3 and Clause 7.9 of the ESIC Transfer Policy 2024, in the interest of justice;
(d) Cost of the proceedings may also be awarded in favour of the applicant and against the respondents.
(e) And to grant any other or further relief/s which this Hon‟ble tribunal may deems fit and proper under the circumstances of the case."
FACTS OF THE CASE
2. The brief facts of the case, as stated by the applicant, are that he initially joined the services of the Employees‟ State Insurance Corporation (ESIC) on 18.05.2009 as Insurance Inspector/Office Superintendent/Branch Manager at Regional Office, Chennai. Thereafter, he was transferred to ESIC Hospital, Basaidarapur, Delhi on 01.05.2012. It is further stated that the applicant was promoted on ad-hoc basis to the post of Assistant Director on NEETU Digitally signed by NEETU SHARMA SHARMADate:
06.12.2016 and was posted at Mansa, Punjab. Subsequently, vide 2026.04.18 11:47:08+05'30' order dated 23.07.2019, he was transferred to ESIC Hospital, 3 OA No. 2887/2025 Rudrapur (Uttarakhand) under Regional Office, Dehradun, where he has been serving since then. The applicant submits that in December, 2024, he had to avail leave due to the serious medical condition of his mother, who underwent bilateral knee replacement surgery, and requires continuous care. It is further submitted that his father is also a senior citizen suffering from age-related ailments and the applicant is the sole earning member of the family.
2.1 It is the case of the applicant that the respondents introduced a new Transfer Policy dated 19.12.2024 (Annexure-A/3) and thereafter issued a circular dated 17.01.2025 (Annexure-A/4) inviting options for Annual General Transfer (AGT-2025).
However, according to the applicant, the said circular was never communicated to him and he was deprived of the opportunity to exercise his option for choice posting. The grievance of the applicant arose when the respondents issued the impugned transfer order dated 28.03.2025 (Annexure-A/2), whereby the applicant was transferred from Rudrapur (Dehradun Region) to Tamil Nadu Region. The applicant contends that he has not completed the prescribed tenure and his transfer vide the impugned transfer order is contrary to the Transfer Policy, 2024.
2.2 Being aggrieved, the applicant submitted representations dated 01.04.2025 and 07.04.2025 [Annexure-A/6 (Colly.)] to the competent authorities requesting reconsideration of his transfer on personal and medical grounds. The said representations were duly dispatched and also sent through emails [Annexure-A/7 & A/8 NEETU Digitally signed by NEETU SHARMA SHARMADate: 2026.04.18 11:47:08+05'30' (Colly.)].
4OA No. 2887/2025 2.3 As no decision was taken on his representations, the applicant approached this Tribunal by filing O.A. No. 1447/2025, which was disposed of vide Order dated 24.04.2025 (Annexure-A/9), directing the respondents to consider and decide the the said representations of the applicant within a stipulated time and in accordance with law, while keeping the impugned transfer Order in abeyance. It is further submitted that the respondents thereafter reconstituted the National Litigation Committee (NLC) vide order dated 19.05.2025 (Annexure-A/10) and placed the case of the applicant before it. The NLC, however, rejected the representations of the applicant and upheld the transfer, vide recommendation dated 09.06.2025 (Annexure-A/12).
2.4 The applicant contends that the said decision of the NLC is arbitrary, non-speaking and in violation of the directions issued by this Tribunal, as well as the principles of natural justice. It is also stated that the respondents issued another transfer order dated 04.06.2025 (Annexure-A/11), however, the case of the applicant was not reconsidered therein. The applicant again submitted a representation dated 09.07.2025 (Annexure-A/13), which remained undecided.
2.5 Subsequently, the respondents issued the impugned relieving order dated 17.07.2025 (Annexure-A/1), relieving the applicant to join at the transferred place, i.e., Tamil Nadu Region. Aggrieved by the aforesaid actions of the respondents, the applicant has filed the present O.A. seeking the reliefs, as noted hereinabove. NEETU Digitally signed by NEETU SHARMA SHARMADate: 2026.04.18 11:47:08+05'30' 5 OA No. 2887/2025
3. Pursuant to notice issued by this Tribunal, the respondents have filed reply opposing the claim of the applicant. In response thereto, the applicant has also filed rejoinder. CONTENTIONS OF THE APPLICANT
4. The present Original Application is being filed, inter alia, on the following grounds: -
i. that there is no reason much less justified to not allow the present application seeking quashing and setting aside of impugned Relieving order dated 17.07.2025 and Transfer Order dated 28.03.2025 issued by the ESIC, Ministry of Labour & Employment, Govt. of India and ESIC Hospital, Rudrapur, Uttarakhand respectively, thereby allowing the applicant to continue serving at his present station, as the impugned speaking order of NLC dated 09.07.2025 and Relieving order dated 17.07.2025 are passed without considering the directions of this Tribunal regarding the application of principal of natural justice while deciding the representation of applicant. Hence, the same is liable to be set aside on this sole ground.
ii. that the speaking order/minutes of the meetings of the NLC have failed to consider and address the issues and grievances raised by the applicant in the representations, as was directed by the Tribunal. The authority has merely responded to one NEETU Digitally signed by NEETU SHARMA aspect in a vague and perfunctory manner, leaving the SHARMADate: 2026.04.18 11:47:08+05'30' substantive concerns unexamined. The speaking 6 OA No. 2887/2025 order/minutes of NLC deliberately disregarded the necessity of circulating the office circular dated 17.01.2025 citing its availability on the official portal as sufficient. This intentional omission stands in direct contravention of the respondent's own mandatory directive, wherein all controlling officers were advised and instructed to ensure the said circular was brought to the attention of all concerned officers/officials under proper acknowledgement.
iii. that the speaking order and minutes of the NLC proceedings have merely reiterated and justified the transfer on the grounds of administrative exigency and all-India transfer liability attached to the post of Assistant Director, while completely disregarding the respondent‟s own latest transfer list dated 04.06.2025 - wherein five officers were reassigned to locations different from their originally allotted postings.
This selective application of policy reflects a clear disregard of the directions issued by the Tribunal and renders the speaking order, relieving order, and transfer order liable to be quashed.
iv. that the impugned transfer order is in direct contravention of Clause 4.3 of the ESIC Transfer Policy 2024, which prescribes a maximum tenure of 10 years at a station (defined as a city/town). The applicant has served at Rudrapur for only 5 years and 8 months, which is well within the prescribed NEETU Digitally signed by NEETU SHARMA tenure limit. Thus, his transfer outside the zone is arbitrary SHARMADate: 2026.04.18 11:47:08+05'30' and ultra vires to the said transfer policy. The impugned 7 OA No. 2887/2025 transfer order is bad in law, as it is a clear violation of New Transfer Policy, 2024. It is pertinent to mention that the applicant has only served only 5 years and 8 months at one station i.e., RO-Dehradun, and has not completed maximum tenure as per aforementioned policy. Hence, the transfer is premature and contrary to Point 4.3 of the said transfer policy.
v. that the impugned transfer orders passed by ESIC failed to consider the fact that as per clause 5.2 of New Transfer Policy, an officer/employee, who has completed or will be completing the prescribed maximum tenure as on 31st March of the Transfer Year, is eligible for transfers. It is submitted that the ESIC wrongly considered the prescribed maximum period of the applicant and overlooked the fact that the maximum completion tenure at a station is not yet completed.
vi. that no opportunity was given to applicant for exercising the transfer choice on the behest of non-service of Circular No.A-
33/19/IRT/PA/2013 E-II dated 17.01.2025 to the applicant. It is pertinent to mention here that the Controlling Officers were directed to inform regarding the above said circular to all the concerned officers, including the applicant under proper acknowledgment. However, this circular was never communicated to the applicant, nor was he given an opportunity to acknowledge or respond to it. The NEETU Digitally signed by NEETU SHARMA respondents‟ failure to duly notify the same to the applicant SHARMADate: 2026.04.18 11:47:08+05'30' constitutes a procedural lapse, violating principles of natural 8 OA No. 2887/2025 justice. The applicant was effectively denied his right to participate in the process, thereby rendering the transfer order arbitrary and vitiated.
vii. that the Circular No. A-33/19/IRT/PA/2013 E-II dated 17.01.2025 itself is in contravention with the New Transfer Policy, 2024 wherein choices of transfer station preferences via an online module would be made available for 15 days, as the 15 day period i.e., from 15th to 31st December, 2024 was specified in the Model Calendar but it was arbitrary reduced to just 10 days i.e., from 18th to 27th January, 2025 in the actual HQ Circular. Furthermore, the applicant was not even informed about it by the controlling officers. The applicant‟s non-submission of preference was not intentional but a consequence of this non-communication, as he was on leave in December, 2024 due to surgery and care giving of old-
ailing mother during January, 2025, rendering the transfer unjust. The respondents have blindly applied the transfer policy without considering its nuances, exceptions, and humanitarian grounds. The failure to exercise discretion rationally and judiciously makes the transfer order arbitrary and legally unsustainable. An authority must apply its mind before passing an order affecting the fundamental rights and livelihood of an employee.
viii. that the past compliance with Transfers and the action of NEETU Digitally signed by NEETU SHARMA applicant for not seeking a favourable posting is evidence in SHARMADate: 2026.04.18 11:47:08+05'30' itself that the integrity of applicant beyond doubt. It is 9 OA No. 2887/2025 germane to mention here that the applicant never sought preferential posting and have always accepted transfers in public interest. Indeed, given this history of compliance with service needs, fairness dictates that the applicant‟s request be accommodated now, considering his family responsibilities. The applicant has an unblemished service record spanning over 14 years and has consistently complied with previous transfer orders without objections. He has never faced any complaints or disciplinary proceedings. The sudden transfer order, without justification or urgency, contradicts established service jurisprudence, where administrative decisions must be fair, reasonable, and non-discriminatory. ix. that the applicant‟s mother underwent bilateral total knee replacement on 03.12.2024 at Fortis Hospital. She requires urgent and necessary care, proper medication assistance for basic mobility and physiotherapy for at least two months. On the other side, the applicant‟s father is a senior citizen aged more than 70 years, suffers from various old age ailments and health issues. Hence, cannot manage care giving alone. The applicant‟s sisters live in another State, leaving the applicant as the only available caregiver. Hence, Clause 7.9 of the New Transfer Policy, 2024 allows retention based on administrative efficiency, which includes humanitarian grounds. The impugned transfer order fails to consider the NEETU Digitally signed by NEETU SHARMA exceptional personal hardships of the applicant. Needless to SHARMADate: 2026.04.18 11:47:08+05'30' mention here that the applicant is the sole earning member of 10 OA No. 2887/2025 the family and the only son and his two sisters are married and settled elsewhere, leaving him as the sole caretaker of his parents. His father (aged 70+) is ailing and requires constant care. His mother, who underwent major surgery, can barely walk and requires daily assistance. The transfer to Tamil Nadu would render it impossible for the applicant to fulfill his moral, legal, and filial obligations, which is an unreasonable and harsh application of the policy in contravention of service law principles.
x. that there is clear contradiction between Clause 4.3 and Clause 5.4 of the ESIC Transfer Policy 2024. While Clause 4.3 limits the tenure at a station to 10 years, Clause 5.4 states that in the absence of a submitted transfer preference, the authority may transfer an officer at its discretion. However, the policy does not clarify whether an officer can be transferred outside the zone before completing the maximum tenure. Given that the applicant had not exhausted the maximum tenure at the station, his transfer outside the zone is an erroneous interpretation of the policy, rendering the order legally unsustainable.
xi. that the ad-hoc nature of employment of applicant was never considered. The applicant is serving on an ad-hoc basis, and his transfer should be determined based on administrative necessity rather than rigid policy application. Ad-hoc officers NEETU Digitally signed by NEETU SHARMA do not hold permanent posts, and subjecting them to SHARMADate: 2026.04.18 11:47:08+05'30' permanent employees‟ transfer norms is irrational and 11 OA No. 2887/2025 administratively unsound. The respondents failed to make a distinction between ad-hoc and permanent employees, thereby misapplying the policy.
xii. that the New Transfer Policy, Circular and impugned Transfer order are in contravention of the Principles of Natural Justice. The respondents issued the impugned transfer order without communicating the 15-day circular, thereby depriving the applicant of an opportunity to submit a transfer preference. Providing any reasoned justification for disregarding the Medical Superintendent‟s recommendation for retention. Considering the applicant‟s representation before finalizing the transfer. This non-compliancewith the principles of natural justice (audi alteram partem) vitiates the transfer order.
xiii. that the Supreme Court has repeatedly held that administrative discretion must be exercised in a fair and reasonable manner and should not result in arbitrary action. The respondents have misused their discretionary power by failing to provide justification for transferring the applicant outside his zone without exhausting his station tenure. This renders the transfer mala fide, arbitrary, and legally untenable.
xiv. that there are multiple precedents where courts have set aside transfer orders that violate policies, principles of natural NEETU Digitally signed by NEETU SHARMA justice, and humanitarian grounds. The present transfer order SHARMADate: 2026.04.18 11:47:08+05'30' is unsustainable in light of such legal principles and past 12 OA No. 2887/2025 judicial rulings. Consistency in administrative decision- making is a fundamental principle of service jurisprudence, which has been violated in this case.
xv. that the fundamental principle of transfer law is that an order must be based on public interest or administrative necessity. In the present case, the applicant‟s services are required at ESIC Hospital, Rudrapur, as per the Medical Superintendent‟s recommendation. No reason has been provided as to why the applicant‟s presence in Tamil Nadu is necessary. There is no urgency or exigency of service that mandates his relocation at this time. An arbitrary transfer that does not serve public or administrative interest is legally unsustainable.
xvi. that the Hon‟ble Supreme Court has consistently held that a transfer policy cannot be applied in a manner that imposes an excessive and unreasonable hardship on an employee. The transfer to Tamil Nadu results in, Physical separation from his dependent parents, which will directly affect their well- being and Financial burden due to the cost of relocation and maintaining two households. Furthermore, the transfer of applicant to Tamil Nadu again will develop Psychological distress arising from the inability to fulfill family obligations. The respondents have not conducted any balancing exercise between organizational needs and the hardship faced by the NEETU Digitally signed by NEETU SHARMA applicant, which is an essential requirement under service SHARMADate: 2026.04.18 11:47:08+05'30' law.
13OA No. 2887/2025 xvii. that the respondents have previously allowed officers in similar circumstances to remain at their stations based on medical and humanitarian grounds. The denial of such consideration to the applicant violates Article 14 of the Constitution of India (Right to Equality), as it amounts to discriminatory application of policy.
xviii. that ESIC has a history of granting exemptions to employees facing critical family hardships, especially when the employee is the sole earning member, and the employee‟s parents are aged and ailing. By departing from its own consistent practice, ESIC has acted arbitrarily, violating the doctrine of legitimate expectations.
xix. that there is no record of any complaints or negative remarks against the applicant, any disciplinary proceedings pending against the applicant, any adverse impact of his presence in Rudrapur on the administration. In the absence of any performance-related issues, the transfer appears punitive and unreasonable.
xx. that most service transfer policies, including ESIC‟s, contain a guiding principle of employee welfare, which mandates that Employees should not be transferred in a way that unduly disrupts their personal lives. Requests for retention on genuine grounds should be considered sympathetically. Ignoring these policy objectives amounts to bad faith (mala NEETU Digitally signed by NEETU SHARMA fides) in decision-making.
SHARMADate: 2026.04.18 11:47:08+05'30' 14 OA No. 2887/2025 xxi. that before transferring an employee to an undesirable location, the authorities must assess whether the employee can be accommodated elsewhere. In this case, no attempt was made to place the applicant in a station closer to his family. The applicant was directly transferred to Tamil Nadu, which is an extreme hardship. A failure to explore less disruptive alternatives makes the order unreasonable. xxii. that there is a Lack of representation from the Transfer Committee Before Issuing the Order. If ESIC follows a Transfer Committee system, the applicant was entitled to Notice of his proposed transfer, an opportunity to submit objections, and consideration of his family hardships before finalizing the decision. The denial of representation before the decision-making body is a violation of procedural fairness. xxiii. that there is a Denial of Fundamental Right to a Stable Family Life (Article 21, Constitution of India) attempted vide the impugned transfer orders. The right to live with dignity, as interpreted under Article 21, includes the right to care for one‟s dependent parents. A transfer that disrupts familial obligations and causes emotional and financial distress violates the right to a stable family life.
xxiv. that the principle of „No Change in Status Quo ‟Pending Representation Outcome will purely applicable here. Once an employee files a representation against a transfer, the status NEETU Digitally signed by NEETU SHARMA quo should be maintained until a decision is made. In this SHARMADate: 2026.04.18 11:47:08+05'30' case the applicant submitted a representation citing his 15 OA No. 2887/2025 personal hardships. The transfer order was not stayed pending a decision. This hasty enforcement of transfer contravenes the doctrine of administrative fairness. xxv. that the New Transfer Policy lacks transparency as the same does not include a Priority Matrix for considering transfers on request basis or compassionate grounds. It is important to note that the previous policy outlined specific criteria for prioritizing such transfers, including cases involving staff with disabilities, employees with differently-abled dependent children, staff members over the age of 58, single women employees, single parents, spouse-related transfers, and situations involving life-threatening or terminal illnesses affecting the employee, their spouse, children, or dependent parents. However, the New Transfer Policy fails to maintain transparency in transfers requested on compassionate grounds, as stipulated in clause 5.2 of the policy. xxvi. that the New Transfer Policy does not align with the DoP&T guidelines as it lacks an appropriate Grievance Mechanism forum. It is important to highlight that the Transfer Policy, 2024 fails to incorporate a functional grievance system, resulting in significant hardships for officers and employees affected by transfer orders.
xxvii. that a valid administrative order must be, reasoned, based on clear policy principles, and fair in its application. The transfer NEETU Digitally signed by NEETU SHARMA orderlacks any specific justification, making it a non-speaking SHARMADate: 2026.04.18 11:47:08+05'30' 16 OA No. 2887/2025 order. Such orders have been repeatedly struck down by courts.
SUBMISSION BY THE RESPONDENTS
5. Learned counsel, by referring to the contents of the counter reply filed on 19.08.2025 on behalf of respondents, submitted that being a Statutory Organization, it is the duty of the ESIC to satisfy the need of each and every Insured Person so that they would also get the chance to work for the benevolent scheme of ESIC. The ESIC is fully empowered to transfer any of its employees to anywhere in India according to the requirements of public interest as the basic scheme of the ESI Act is to serve the general public in India. Therefore, it would become necessary in the interest of all persons including all IPs and as an administrative exigency, the transfer of service is inevitable. The instant O.A. filed by the applicant is frivolous, against the public interest and not in consonance with the service condition of the appointment. The Transfer/posting policy of officers (including cadres of Official Language, Engineering and Personal Staff) on the administrative side of ESI Corporation, drawing scale of pay corresponding to Group „A‟ and Group „B‟ officers of the Central Government, was issued on 19.12.2024 (Annex-R/1). Clause 1 (iii) of the transfer/posting policy dated 19.12.2024 states as under:-
"For smooth functioning of various field offices of ESI Corporation, Officers (including cadres of Official Language, Engineering and Personal Staff) on the Administrative side of ESI Corporation drawing scale of pay corresponding to Group „A‟ and Group „B‟ officers of the Central Government shall continue to be liable for transfer and posting NEETU Digitally signed by NEETU SHARMA SHARMADate: 2026.04.18 11:47:08+05'30' anywhere in India".17 OA No. 2887/2025
5.1 Clause 2 (i) of the transfer/posting policy dated 19.12.2024 states as under: -
"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. Hence, transfer to a particular station cannot be claimed as a matter of right and shall be subject to administrative feasibility".
5.2 The respondents submit that the applicant is a Group „B‟ officer (Assistant Director) and is liable for transfer anywhere in India. His transfer from ESIC Hospital, Rudrapur to Regional Office, Tamil Nadu vide ESIC Headquarters, New Delhi Office Order No. 62 of 2025 dated 28.03.2025 (Sl. No.91) (Annexure-R/2) was made as per the provisions of the Transfer/posting policy dated 19.12.2024 with the approval of the competent authority. His relieving order was issued vide Office Order No. 107 of 2025 dated 25.04.2025 (Annexure-R/3) and Relieving Order dated 17.07.2025 (Annexure-R/4) has also been issued. The applicant has completed maximum tenure of five years at present office. No other office is located at Rudrapur station. Further, despite calling for choice station vide Circular dated 17.01.2025 (Annexure-R/5) from the officer, no online request was received. Hence, on the recommendation of Transfer Committee he was transferred as per administrative requirements. The arguments pertaining to ambiguities and issues in previous transfer policies are extraneous to the matter at hand. The fact is that the officer has been transferred under the new policy dated 19.12.2024. Any submission NEETU Digitally regarding superseded policies is irrelevant and only an attempt by signed by NEETU SHARMA SHARMADate: 2026.04.18 11:47:08+05'30' the applicant to mislead this Court. The applicant‟s assertion that 18 OA No. 2887/2025 the Circular dated 17.01.2025 was not served upon them, and no acknowledgment was taken, is strongly denied. It is submitted that the said Circular was duly uploaded and made accessible on the official website of the ESIC. The uploading of official communications on the designated institutional website constitutes sufficient public notice and constructive knowledge for all concerned officers and officials. The responsibility rests with every official to keep themselves apprised of official communications and policies disseminated through prescribed online platforms; therefore, the claim of non-notification due to lack of individual physical service or personal acknowledgment is unsustainable, as knowledge is presumed from its public availability. 5.3 The applicant‟s claims regarding health issues of his mother. While this is sympathetic concern it cannot override the administrative exigencies and public interest that necessitate the transfer of a public servant. Transfers are an inherent incident of service and personal difficulties cannot be a ground to challenge a valid transfer order unless mala fides is proven. The maximum tenure is defined at clause 4.3 of transfer posting policy dated 19.12.2024 and states asunder: -
"4.3 Maximum tenure at a station shall be 10 (Ten) years and maximum tenure at an office shall be 5 (five) years. However, in case there is only 1 (one) office at a station, no officer will stay at the station for more than 5 (five) years. In the case of posts identified as sensitive, the provisions contained at 4.2 above shall be applicable".
5.4 The applicant has completed his maximum tenure at an office and liable to be transfer as per transfer policy. The applicant was NEETU Digitally signed by NEETU SHARMA SHARMADate: 2026.04.18 11:47:08+05'30' posted at Rudrapur station and no other office is present at 19 OA No. 2887/2025 Rudrapur. Further, it is pertinent to mention here that an officer on ad-hoc basis carries the same liability as regular Assistant Director w.r.t. transfer. The applicant‟s representation dated 07.04.2025 (Annexure-R/6) addressed to NLC had been duly placed before NLC. However, NLC has not acceded to his request, which was duly communicated to him through e-mail dated 08.07.2025 (Annexure- R/7). The transfer order in question has been issued in strict adherence to the prevailing transfer policy and with due consideration for the principles of natural justice. All requisite procedures were followed, and the applicant was afforded proper opportunity to present his case. While it is acknowledged that the outcome of the transfer order is not to the applicant‟s satisfaction, thereby prompting the present challenge, it is respectfully contended that dissatisfaction with a lawfully issued order, compliant with policy and principles of natural justice, does not inherently render it arbitrary, illegal, or amenable to judicial interference. The mere fact that an order is not in an individual‟s favour does not vitiate its legality when procedural fairness has been observed and substantive provisions of policy have been correctly applied. It is submitted that the averment concerning the reconstitution of the National Litigation Committee (NLC) vide Memorandum bearing Serial No. Estt./Legal/2862/2015 dated 19.05.2025, and the subsequent implication of its prior non- existence, is wrong and incorrect hence is disputed and denied. The internal administrative matters pertaining to the establishment, NEETU Digitally signed by NEETU SHARMA SHARMADate: 2026.04.18 11:47:08+05'30' composition, and reconstitution of the National Litigation 20 OA No. 2887/2025 Committee, including the specific dates of its formation or any subsequent reconstitutions, fall squarely within the exclusive purview of the Legal Branch of the Respondents. It is emphatically asserted that the reconstitution of the NLC, even if occurring subsequent to an order of this Tribunal, does not, in itself, manifest or imply any mala fide intention or constitute a contravention of the established law of the land. Reconstitution of such committees is a routine administrative exercise. The mere timing of such a reconstitution, particularly when aimed at strengthening the mechanism for addressing litigation, cannot be construed as evidence of prior non-existence or an attempt to circumvent legal mandates.
5.4 The averment of the applicant regarding intentionally delaying the applicant‟s case or disrespecting the Tribunal‟s order is vague and baseless. The NLC handles many cases at a given time, and processing them takes time due to administrative and logistical factors. Any delay was due to these unavoidable administrative reasons, not a deliberate defiance of the Tribunal‟s directive. The decision was communicated to the applicant vide email dated 08.07.2025 which in itself is evident of the fact that the matter was handled in good faith, even with some administrative delay. Therefore, the contempt allegation is unfounded. There is an acute shortage of officer in the cadre of Assistant Director at Regional Office, Tamil Nadu at present only 2 Assistant Directors are posted NEETU Digitally against the sanctioned strength of 19. The shortage is hampering signed by NEETU SHARMA SHARMADate: 2026.04.18 11:47:08+05'30' the smooth functioning of the ESIC. It is settled law, affirmed 21 OA No. 2887/2025 several times by different Courts including the Hon‟ble Supreme Court that Courts and Tribunals should not ordinarily interfere in transfer matters as the transfer of a public servant is an incident of service required in public interest. As has been held by Hon‟ble High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in Babita Kaushal Vs. Chairman, Punjab Gramin Bank & Ors., CWP-18321-2024 (O & M) and CWP-12146-2024 (O & M) (Annexure-R/8):-
"11. Thus, it is clear that courts or the Administrative Tribunals are not expected to interfere in transfer matters unless the orders are vitiated either by mala fides or by extraneous consideration."
5.5 The applicant is misusing the process of law despite knowing that he is liable for transfer anywhere in India in public interest and in administrative constraints. The applicant has been ordered for relieving from his present office vide Relieving Order dated 17.07.2025. The applicant ought to have reported to his ordered place of posting in compliance of the said orders, and his non- joining is affecting the functioning of R.O., Tamil Nadu. REJOINDER BY THE APPLICANT
6. In response to the counter reply filed by the respondents, the applicant filed a rejoinder on 09.09.2025 reiterating the averments made in the O.A. and denying the allegations made by the respondents. The applicant, at the outset, submits that the impugned transfer order, relieving order, and the decision of the National Litigation Committee (NLC) are ex-facie arbitrary, illegal, NEETU Digitally signed by NEETU SHARMA SHARMADate: 2026.04.18 and violative of the principles of natural justice, and hence, liable to 11:47:08+05'30' be quashed. He further submits that the respondents have failed to 22 OA No. 2887/2025 comply with the specific directions issued by this Tribunal, whereby the respondents were directed to consider the representation of the applicant in accordance with law and by adhering to the principles of natural justice. The so-called consideration by the NLC is merely illusory and does not satisfy the mandate of the Tribunal. It is submitted that no opportunity of hearing was ever granted to the applicant before deciding his representation. The NLC has passed its decision in a mechanical manner without affording the applicant an opportunity to present his case, thereby vitiating the entire decision-making process. The respondents have failed to pass a reasoned and speaking order. Only minutes dated 08/09.07.2025 have been forwarded, which do not disclose any reasoning or application of mind. It is a settled proposition of law that administrative decisions affecting rights must be reasoned. The NLC was reconstituted only on 19.05.2025, subsequent to the Tribunal‟s order, thereby clearly indicating that no competent body existed at the time when the applicant‟s representation ought to have been considered. The entire exercise is thus procedurally flawed and non-est. The respondents had already issued the transfer list dated 04.06.2025 and relieving order dated 17.07.2025, even before proper consideration of the applicant‟s representation. This clearly demonstrates that the decision was pre-determined and the consideration of representation was an empty formality. The applicant has been singled out for adverse treatment. While other similarly situated officers were accommodated as per their NEETU Digitally signed by NEETU SHARMA SHARMADate: 2026.04.18 11:47:08+05'30' preferences, the applicant alone has been transferred to a distant 23 OA No. 2887/2025 station without any rational basis. Such selective treatment is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. The respondents have falsely contended that there is only one office at Rudrapur. However, official records clearly indicate the existence of multiple offices in Uttarakhand, including Dehradun, Haridwar, and Rudrapur, where the applicant could have been adjusted. This suppression of material facts vitiates the impugned action. The applicant has completed only about 5 years and 8 months at the present station, whereas the transfer policy permits a tenure of up to 10 years. The premature transfer of the applicant is thus in clear violation of Clause 4.3 of the policy. The respondents have wrongly equated "office" with "station" to justify the transfer. The policy clearly distinguishes between the two, and such misinterpretation renders the impugned action unsustainable. The applicant is the sole caretaker of his aged mother, who underwent knee surgery during the relevant period. The respondents have failed to consider these compelling personal circumstances, which ought to have been given due weight in transfer matters. The respondents‟ plea that the circular was uploaded on the website is untenable. The circular itself mandates communication through controlling officers under proper acknowledgment. Failure to do so deprived the applicant of the opportunity to exercise his choice. The impugned transfer to Tamil Nadu, which is approximately 2500 km away, is harsh and disproportionate, particularly when the applicant had already served in that region earlier. Such transfer, without justification, NEETU Digitally signed by NEETU SHARMA SHARMADate: 2026.04.18 11:47:08+05'30' amounts to arbitrary exercise of power. The respondents have failed 24 OA No. 2887/2025 to demonstrate any genuine administrative exigency. On the contrary, the post held by the applicant is still lying vacant, and there is a shortage of officers in nearby offices, which makes the transfer irrational. The respondents have wrongly treated the applicant at par with regular Assistant Directors in terms of transfer liability. There is no provision in the policy to support such a position. While it is conceded that transfer is an incident of service, it is equally well settled that transfer orders can be interfered with where they are mala fide, arbitrary, or in violation of statutory rules or policies. The present case squarely falls within these exceptions. The respondents have failed to provide any cogent explanation for the delay in considering the applicant‟s representation. The vague plea of administrative workload cannot justify non-compliance with judicial directions. The cumulative effect of the above facts clearly establishes that the impugned transfer order is not a bona fide administrative decision but is tainted with arbitrariness, discrimination, and non-application of mind. 6.1 The applicant contends that it is an admitted fact that transfer is an incident of service, but the Hon‟ble Supreme Court has consistently held that transfer must conform to policy, competency of authority, fairness and absence of mala fides.
(i) In Union of India Vs. S. L. Abbas, reported in (1993) 4 SCC 357, the Court held that while transfer is normally not interfered with, interference is justified if the order is NEETU Digitally signed by NEETU SHARMA SHARMADate: 2026.04.18 11:47:08+05'30' malafide or in violation of statutory rules or guidelines. 25 OA No. 2887/2025
(ii) In State of U.P. Vs. Gobardhan Lal, reported in (2004) 11 SCC 402, the Court reiterated that deviation from transfer policy, if arbitrary, invites judicial review.
7. Learned counsel for the respondents by referring to the additional affidavit filed on 15.12.2025 submits that the present matter was listed before this Tribunal on 13.10.2025 and the following directions were passed: -
"7. In view of the above, we direct the applicant to submit a fresh representation raising all his grounds before the competent authority within 10 days from today. The applicant shall be granted a personal hearing by the committee constituted for this purpose. The committee shall consider all issues raised by the applicant and pass a reasoned and speaking order in accordance with law. The respondents shall place the outcome of this exercise on record by the next date of hearing.
8. The respondents are further directed to place on record the outcome of the said reconsideration on the next date of hearing. This entire exercise shall be completed within a period of four weeks from today.
9. List the matter on 17.12.2025.
10. In the meantime, the respondents are directed to consider the release of the applicant‟s salary, keeping in view the interim protection granted by this Tribunal vide order dated 30.07.2025."
7.1 The respondents have since, in compliance of the directions of this Tribunal dated 13.10.2025, placed the representation of the applicant before the duly constituted NLC (National Litigation Committee) for re-consideration of his case. The NLC held its meeting on 27.11.2025 and have considered the case of applicant alongwith various other Officers aggrieved by their transfer orders. It is further submitted that the respondents have already sent 2 e- mails dated 19.11.2025 and 26.11.2025 to the applicant for his physical appearance before the NLC as per the directions of this Tribunal but even after being communicated for a personal NEETU Digitally signed by NEETU SHARMA SHARMADate: 2026.04.18 11:47:08+05'30' appearance and hearing, the applicant has deliberately and willfully 26 OA No. 2887/2025 chosen not to appear before the NLC. The conduct of the applicant may kindly be taken a serious note of by this Tribunal. 7.2 The NLC has again advised the Nodal Branch of the respondents‟ Office to send a letter to the applicant to intimate him to appear in person in the next NLC meeting which is scheduled to be held on 22.12.2025. The next personal hearing of the applicant is scheduled on 22.12.2025 and a reasoned and speaking order, in compliance of the directions of this Tribunal, can only be issued after the personal hearing and the NLC Minutes dated 27.11.2025 are being placed before this Tribunal as a matter of record. The instant O.A. and the conduct of the applicant is a complete willful defiance of the orders of this Tribunal. The applicant has exhibited that the O.A. preferred by him and his subsequent conduct are only meant for sheer abuse of the process of Law especially in view of the fact that the applicant on one hand has an interim order operational in his favour and on the other hand he is deliberately delaying the process so as to quietly enjoy the interim orders. This Tribunal may take a serious note of the conduct of the applicant and issue appropriate directions.
8. Learned counsel for the respondents, by referring to the status report filed by them on 20.01.2026, submits that the above matter was last listed before this Tribunal on 17.12.2025 and the following directions were passed: -
" ...... Learned counsel for the respondents submits that on the last two NEETU Digitally signed by NEETU SHARMA SHARMADate: 2026.04.18 11:47:08+05'30' occasions, the applicant failed to appear before the NLC for consideration of his case. He further submits that the next NLC is scheduled to be held on 22.12.2025 at 10:30A.M. at the ESIC Headquarters, Delhi.27 OA No. 2887/2025
2. Learned counsel for the applicant assures that the applicant shall positively appear before the NLC on the said date.
3. The oral order is passed in the presence of the respective parties. Both the parties are put to notice that no ground whatsoever shall be entertained on behalf of the applicant for non-appearance before the NLC on the aforesaid date.
4. List the matter on 20.01.2026 in the cause list of the Principal Bench. It is made clear that in the event of failure on the part of the applicant to appear before the NLC, the interim order granted in his favour shall stand vacated automatically........."
8.1 The respondents further submit that the points raised in the fresh representation dated 24.12.2025 preferred by the applicant, the point-wise comments and Action Taken Report (ATR) for the consideration of NLC are as follows:-
Grounds raised by Sh. Reply/ATR
Kedar Singh
The officer contested that his It is informed that the applicant was relieved from
salary has not been paid ESICH, Rudrapur on 17.07.2025. As per the service since August 2025 and rules, salary shall be paid only after the officer joins at requested for its release. his ordered place of posting, i.e., RO, Tamil Nadu. Since he has not joined the new station, the salary remains unpaid.
Further, Fundamental Rule 108 stipulates that "A Government servant who does not join his post within his joining time is entitled to no pay or leave Salary after the end of the joining time. Wilful absence from duty after the expiry of joining time may be treated as misbehaviour for the purpose of Rule 15."
He stated that he is the sole While personal circumstances are noted, transfers are
caregiver for his elderly, an incident of service. Individual hardships cannot
ailing parents and a young override administrative exigencies and public interest,
child, and a distant transfer especially given the acute shortage of officers at RO,
would cause extreme Tamil Nadu.
hardship.
He claimed ambiguity in the As per Clause 4.3 of the policy, maximum tenure at an
transfer policy dated office is 5 years. Since there is only one office at
19.12.2024 regarding the 5- Rudrapur station, the5-year limit applies. The officer
year and 10-year maximum has already completed over 6 years and 5 months at
tenure clauses. the current station.
He alleged technical issues in The circular for AGT -2025 was uploaded on the
the ERP portal and a official website. The 10-day window was uniform for
shortened 10-day window for all cadres, and it was the responsibility of the officer to
submitting station keep himself updated via the public domain.
preferences.
He mentioned that he has Assistant Directors carry an All-India Transfer
NEETU
already served a three-year
Digitally signed by
NEETU SHARMA
Liability. A previous posting in a state does not grant SHARMA tenure in Tamil Nadu Date: 2026.04.18 11:47:08+05'30' permanent immunity from future postings in the same previously. region if administrative needs require it. 28 OA No. 2887/2025
8.2 Despite the fact that proceedings are pending before this Tribunal and further that the applicant's grievances have since been considered by the NLC vide personal hearing dated 22.12.2025, the applicant has since chosen to simultaneously send a Legal Notice to the respondents.
9. Learned counsel for the applicant, by placing reliance on the rejoinder filed by him on 09.03.2026, submits that during the pendency of the present proceedings, the applicant found that his official e-mail account, namely [email protected], had become inaccessible, thereby preventing him from accessing official communications and discharging his official functions effectively. Upon attempting to log in, the official Government portal prominently displayed an "Important Notice" stating that the e-mail service hosted on the legacy platform was frequently facing technical issues and was in the process of being discontinued, that the said legacy platform had reached its end-of-life and become obsolete, and that migration to the new platform was underway with certain accounts still in the migration pipeline. The said notice clearly establishes that the inaccessibility of the applicant‟s official e-mail account was due to systemic and technical reasons beyond his control and not attributable to any fault, omission or negligence on his part. The applicant came to know that during the migration of the legacy e-mail domain to the new platform, his login credentials were removed from the list of active users by the Department, due to which his official e-mail account became NEETU Digitally signed by NEETU SHARMA SHARMADate: 2026.04.18 11:47:08+05'30' completely non-functional. This action was taken even though 29 OA No. 2887/2025 interim protection granted by this Tribunal was still in force in favour of the applicant. It is submitted that the removal of the applicant‟s credentials from the official domain was arbitrary and unfair, as it prevented him from accessing official communications without any justification. The said act amounts to a coercive step taken against the applicant despite the subsisting interim orders of this Tribunal and is therefore liable to be viewed seriously. 9.1 It is further submitted that the applicant made repeated efforts to regain access to his official e-mail account. However, all such attempts initially proved futile. The applicant, on multiple occasions, initiated the password recovery process through the official portal in accordance with the prescribed procedure. Eventually, on 04.12.2025, the applicant received a One-Time Password (OTP) through the system-generated SMS mechanism and successfully reset his password, as duly reflected in the said automated message. Notwithstanding the successful password change, the applicant continued to remain unable to access his mailbox owing to persistent technical issues associated with the legacy e-mail platform, which had already been declared obsolete and under migration. The circumstances clearly demonstrate that the continued inaccessibility of the applicant‟s official e-mail account was attributable to systemic technical constraints and not to any lapse on his part. In view of the persistent and unresolved technical issues rendering his official e-mail account inaccessible, the applicant contacted the concerned staff members through NEETU Digitally signed by NEETU SHARMA SHARMADate: 2026.04.18 11:47:08+05'30' whatsapp communications and also addressed an e-mail from his 30 OA No. 2887/2025 personal account to the competent authorities, specifically requesting restoration and reactivation of access to his official e- mail ID. Despite such efforts on the part of the applicant, no response or remedial action was forthcoming from the concerned authorities, thereby leaving the applicant without access to his official electronic correspondence for reasons entirely beyond his control. Thereafter, the applicant appeared before the NLC and submitted his grievance and relied upon fresh representation dated 22.10.2025, however, upon raising additional grievance regarding salary the NLC directed to file additional/fresh NLC to raise those additional issues. In compliance of directions of NLC, the applicant submitted fresh/additional representation thereby addressing additional grievance along with choice of stations. 9.2 It is also submitted that the NLC/respondents have once again failed to comply with the previous orders and directions passed by this Tribunal. This Tribunal had clearly directed that the applicant's grievances be considered in accordance with the principles of natural justice and that a reasoned and speaking decision be rendered after due consideration of all the issues raised. However, despite the applicant having raised multiple grievances, numbering more than ten in all, including specific representations regarding his choice of posting and other service-related concerns, the respondents have addressed only a limited portion of the issues, and that too in a cursory and mechanical manner. The so-called consideration reflects no meaningful application of mind and NEETU Digitally signed by NEETU SHARMA SHARMADate: 2026.04.18 11:47:08+05'30' appears to have been undertaken merely as a formality, without 31 OA No. 2887/2025 dealing with the substance of the applicant‟s contentions. Such partial and perfunctory compliance defeats the very spirit and intent of the directions issued by this Tribunal and cannot be treated as lawful or adequate compliance in the eyes of law. Till date, no comprehensive and reasoned speaking order, as mandated by this Tribunal has been passed by the NLC addressing all grounds that are raised by the applicant. The respondents have sought to evade their responsibility by merely placing on record the minutes of the meeting, brief point-wise remarks and a so-called Action Taken Report, without undertaking a meaningful and reasoned consideration of the applicant‟s grievances. The status report/counter affidavit filed by the respondents does not reflect independent application of mind or a proper adjudication of the specific issues raised by the applicant. Rather, they appear to be a formal and procedural exercise intended to give an impression of compliance. Mere reproduction of minutes or filing of a perfunctory report cannot substitute the requirement of passing a reasoned and speaking order in accordance with the directions of this Tribunal and the settled principles of natural justice. 9.3 The applicant contends that he has served for 5 years and 8 months at Rudrapur/Regional Office, Dehradun and is well within the permissible tenure at the station. The respondents‟ assertion that Rudrapur has only one office is factually incorrect and misleading, as the official ESIC website itself reflects multiple establishments as the said station, specifically Seven Offices are NEETU Digitally signed by NEETU SHARMA SHARMADate: 2026.04.18 11:47:08+05'30' there wherein three offices i.e., Dehradun, Haridwar and Rudrapur 32 OA No. 2887/2025 are the offices where the applicant could have been posted at the same position. Thus, the respondents have deliberately concealed the other offices with malafide intention and have wrongly interpreted the ESIC Transfer Policy, 2024 by conflating the terms "station and office" under the clauses 3.5 and 3.7 of the said Policy where maximum tenure at a station is 10 years, whereas 5 years pertains to a particular office.
9.4 The circular dated 17.01.2025 requires service under acknowledgement. The applicant was never served with the same and therefore, was deprived of the opportunity to exercise his posting preferences. The mere uploading of a circular on the website does not satisfy the requirement of due service when acknowledgement is mandated. The action of the respondent is in contravention with their own circular and in violation of the principles of natural justice. It is further submitted that owing to the ongoing medical treatment and post-surgical care of the applicant‟s mother, the applicant was preoccupied with attending to her condition and was unable to regularly access or monitor the official portal. It is further submitted that no concerned officer or competent authority informed or notified the applicant regarding the requirement of submitting his choice of station under the new transfer policy despite clear direction in circular dated 17.01.2025. In the absence of any specific communication or intimation to the applicant, the alleged non-submission of choice cannot be attributed to any deliberate omission on his part. This Tribunal, NEETU Digitally signed by NEETU SHARMA SHARMADate: 2026.04.18 11:47:08+05'30' vide order dated 24.04.2025 in earlier proceedings bearing O.A. No. 33 OA No. 2887/2025 1447/2025, directed consideration of the representation by applying principle of natural justice and kept the impugned transfer order dated 28.03.2025 and relieving order, if any in abeyance. The respondents have failed to undertake any meaningful or sympathetic consideration. The compassionate factors cannot be brushed aside mechanically and must be weighed reasonably, and failing of this the act becomes arbitrary.
9.5 The applicant is serving as an ad-hoc Assistant Director. The respondents have erroneously treated ad-hoc service at par with substantive permanent appointment for the purpose of transfer liability. Ad-hoc status requires differential consideration and cannot be subjected to identical rigidity applicable to confirmed officers. The mechanical application of transfer norms reflects non- application of mind. The Proceedings before the NLC were fundamentally flawed. The representation was rejected mechanically without granting a personal hearing. The NLC was reconstituted only on 19.05.2025, raising serious questions about the validity of prior consideration. The Directions of this Tribunal requiring proper consideration and adherence to natural justice were not meaningfully complied with. The absence of a comprehensive, reasoned and speaking order demonstrate violation of settled administrative law principles. The applicant also contends that the respondents have sought to justify the transfer on the grounds of administrative exigency and shortage of Assistant Directors in Tamil Nadu. However, no documentary material has NEETU Digitally signed by NEETU SHARMA SHARMADate: 2026.04.18 11:47:08+05'30' been placed on record to substantiate such alleged shortage. 34 OA No. 2887/2025
10. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and carefully perused the pleadings on record.
ANALYSIS
11. The principal grounds urged by the applicant are that the impugned transfer is contrary to the ESIC Transfer Policy, 2024, violative of principles of natural justice, and suffers from non- consideration of his personal and medical hardships. It is further contended that the NLC has not passed a proper reasoned and speaking order despite directions of this Tribunal.
12. Per contra, the respondents have contended that the applicant, being a Group „B‟ officer (Assistant Director), carries an all-India transfer liability and his transfer has been effected strictly in accordance with the Transfer Policy, 2024 and in view of administrative exigencies, particularly acute shortage of officers in the Tamil Nadu Region. It is also been submitted that the applicant has already completed the prescribed tenure at the office and that his representations have been duly considered.
13. It is well settled that transfer is an incidence of service and the scope of judicial review in such matters is limited. Interference is warranted only where the transfer order is vitiated by mala fides, is in violation of statutory provisions, or suffers from patent arbitrariness. The Hon‟ble Supreme Court in Union of India Vs. S. L. Abbas, reported in (1993) 4 SCC 357 and State of U.P. Vs. Gobardhan Lal, reported in (2004) 11 SCC 402 has consistently NEETU Digitally signed by NEETU SHARMA SHARMADate: 2026.04.18 held that courts/tribunals should not normally interfere with 11:47:08+05'30' transfer orders made in administrative exigency. 35 OA No. 2887/2025 13.1 For facility of reference, it would be profitable to quote the relevant part of Union of India Vs. S. L. Abbas (supra) reads as under: -
"An order of transfer is an incident of Government Service. Fundamental Rule 11 says that "the whole time of a Government servant is at the disposal of the Government which pays him and he may be employed in any manner required by proper authority".
Fundamental Rule 15 says that "the President may transfer a government servant from one post to another". That the respondent is liable to transfer anywhere in India is not in dispute. It is not the case of the respondent that order of his transfer is vitiated by mala fides on the part of the authority making the order,- though the Tribunal does say so merely because certain guidelines issued by the Central Government are not followed, with which finding we shall deal later. The respondent attributed "mischief" to his immediate superior who had nothing to do with his transfer. All he says is that he should not be transferred because his wife is working at shillong, his children are studying there and also because his health had suffered a set-back some time ago. He relies upon certain executive instructions issued by the Government in that behalf. Those instructions are in the nature of guidelines. They do not have statutory force. Who should be transferred where, is a matter for the appropriate authority to decide. Unless the order of transfer is vitiated by malafides or is made in violation of any statutory provisions, the Court cannot interfere with it. While ordering the transfer, there is no doubt, the authority must keep in mind the guidelines issued by the Government on the subject. Similarly if a person makes any representation with respect to his transfer, the appropriate authority must consider the same having regard to the exigencies of administration. The guidelines say that as far as possible, husband and wife must be posted at the same place. The said guideline however does not confer upon the government employee a legally enforceable right."
13.2 Relevant portion of the State of U.P. Vs. Gobardhan Lal (supra) reads as under: -
"A challenge to an order of transfer should normally be eschewed and should not be countenanced by the Courts or Tribunals as though they are Appellate Authorities over such orders, which could assess the niceties of the administrative needs and requirements of the situation concerned. This is for the reason that Courts or Tribunals cannot substitute their own decisions in the matter of transfer for that of competent authorities of the State and even allegations of mala fides when made must be such as to inspire confidence in the Court or are based on concrete materials and ought not to be entertained on the mere making of it or on consideration borne out of conjectures or surmises and except for strong and convincing reasons, no interference could ordinarily be made with an order of transfer."
14. NEETU Digitally In the present case, it is not in dispute that the applicant is signed by NEETU SHARMA SHARMADate: 2026.04.18 11:47:08+05'30' holding a transferable post with all-India liability. The respondents 36 OA No. 2887/2025 have placed on record that there exists an acute shortage of Assistant Directors in Tamil Nadu Region, and the applicant has been transferred in that backdrop. The plea of violation of transfer policy, particularly, Clause 4.3 has been explained by the respondents by stating that since there is only one office at the station, the maximum tenure of 5 years at the office becomes applicable. The said Clause 4.3 reads as under:-
"4. Maximum and Minimum Tenure *** *** *** 4.2 No office 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 maximum tenure at an office shall be 5 (five) years. However, in case there is only 1 (one) office at a station, no officer will stay at the station for more than 5 (five) years. In the case of posts identified as sensitive, the provisions contained at 4.2 above shall be applicable."
15. From the transfer order dated 28.03.2025 (Annexure-A/2), it is seen that 105 employees in the cadre of Assistant Director have been transferred. The applicant stands at serial number 91. If the reason of transfer is an acute shortage of manpower in Tamil Nadu Region, respondents have failed to explain as to which criteria (senior most or junior most person in the cadre of Assistant Directors) has been adopted to transfer the applicant. While transferring the applicant, who is holding post of Assistant Director on Ad-hoc basis, to a place where there is an acute shortage of such officers, respondents have to adhere to some criterion. However, no such criterion is placed before this Tribunal. In absence of any NEETU Digitally signed by NEETU SHARMA SHARMADate: 2026.04.18 11:47:08+05'30' criterion, choosing an employee who is neither senior-most nor 37 OA No. 2887/2025 junior-most and justifying his transfer on account of shortage of manpower is in gross disregard to the principles of Rule of Law.
16. This Tribunal vide Order dated 13.10.2025 passed directions to the respondents, the relevant portion of which is reproduced at Para 7 above. In pursuance to above directions, the applicant filed a representation dated 22.10.2025. The applicant in his above- mentioned representation raised following contentions: -
"1. Sir, I have joined the ESI Corporation on 18/5/2009 and after completing my minimum tenure of 3 years then I was transferred on public interest to Delhi at ESIC Hospital Basaidarapur there also I have completed minimum tenure of 3 years and then again I was transferred in public interest to Regional office, Punjab in Dec 2016 on promotion to the post of Assistant Director on ADHOC basis, initially there also I was posted in remote location "Mansa" for nearly two years and after completing minimum tenure there also I was transferred in Public interest to newly commissioned ESIC hospital Rudrapur, Uttarakhand. As it was newly set up hospital in the region of Uttarakhand and the hospital was not completely functional and the first Financial year of the hospital started from April 2020, So technically I have not even completed 5 years as per Model calendar for Annual General Transfer mentioned at Annexure-I of transfer/posting policy circulated vide file No. A- 22/13/A&B/policy/2024/E-I and with acute shortage of manpower and resource and other office issues I worked with great sincerity and complete devotion to duty despite the constraint that I reside with my family in another district i.e. Nainital which is nearly 35 kms from my present place of posting at ESIC Hospital Rudrapur with a motivation to serve this hospital and IPs with complete sincerity and devotion.
2. I have been transferred multiple limes in my service but I have never requested for preferable transfer till date but still working on Adhoc basis and will complete 10 years next year in 2026. My performance and service records have been very good and my integrity has always been beyond doubt during my entire service and I was always given sensitive assignment due to my honesty and sincerity towards my devotion to duty.
3. I have also never requested for posting of my choice and obeyed the directions of the HQ office. Now since I reside with my small family of my parents, wife and one small child of 8 years my parents have become very old and are in their 70‟s they always need my care and attention as I am the only son of my parents and my both the sisters resides in another state with their family and cannot come here to take care my parents. Also, my mother has recently undergone through bilateral knee surgery and my elderly father who himself does not keep good health, cannot alone help her at this age. I have to visit hospital for follow up appointment and regular check up of my old age ailing NEETU Digitally signed by NEETU SHARMA parents.
SHARMADate: 2026.04.18 11:47:08+05'30'
4. Considering the above situation of my family I have not applied for either online or online Annual General Transfer in the ERP mode as 38 OA No. 2887/2025 there is a provision of maximum tenure of 10 years in a station. As per Annual General Transfer Policy request is to be taken first through online mode in the ERP, then transfer request is considered. Since I have not applied for transfer, I was shocked to see my transfer order to Tamil Nadu state where I had already completed minimum tenure of my initial posting. The reason for such a remote location transfer is shock to me and reason of such transfer is also not known to me which is against principle of natural justice.
5. Sir, as per clause 4.3 of ESIC Transfer Policy, 2024, prescribes a maximum tenure of 10 years at a station (defined as city/town), However, as per records maintained by your good office I have served at Rudrapur for only 5year and 8 months, But as per reasons stated in para 1 of my representation I have not technically completed 5 years. Even otherwise, I may be transferred within Zone/Uttrakhand.
6. The circular dated 17.01.2025 was not served or informed to me despite the mandatory direction passed in the above said circular which clearly directed to bring the above said circular into the notice of all the concerned officers/officials under proper acknowledgment. Further, during that relevant period of Dec-Jan, 2025, my mother underwent bilateral total knee replacement in Fortis Hospital, Noida and I was on leave and busy during that time as my mother required urgent and necessary care, proper medication, assistance for basic mobility and physiotherapy. Hence, I was not able to exercise the transfer choice on the behest of non-service of circular and due to my mother‟s surgery. It is also requested your good office to consider my request regarding retention in the ESIC Rudrapur on humanitarian grounds as there is a post of One Assistant Director is still vacant after the promotion of One Asstt. Director to Dy. Director post.
7. I have been serving on ad-hoc basis from past 09 years. However, I never raised any issue regarding regularisation of my post. Further Ad-hoc officers do not hold permanent posts, and subjecting them to permanent employees transfer norms is irrational and administratively unsound.
8. There are various posts in nearby stations/offices lying vacant where the applicant could he transferred instead of the place of posting where I have already served during my initial year. Sir, there are multiple case in ESIC where one has been posted in the same location for more than 10 years and have not been transferred to such a remote location from their home town. This is also reflected in the present transfer order.
9. The present place of posting is approx. 2500 KM from my hometown. I am the only male person in my family to take care of my ailing parents i.e., old age father and mother who undergone with the surgery and under treatment, minor children and wife. There is no other person to take care of my family. Also, shifting my whole family to Chennai is not practically possible for me. Hence, transferring me to ESIC Chennai could vitiate the intention of policy makers as it is respectfully submitted that the intention and role behind the introduction of transfer policy was to 1} boost the Administrative efficiency of group A & B officers. 2} welfare of officers who dedicates their whole life towards the organisation and 3} Retention and NEETU Digitally signed by motivation to officers who are diligently working for organisation. NEETU SHARMA SHARMADate: 2026.04.18 11:47:08+05'30'
10. Vide order dated 04.06.2025, your good office has considered the requests of 5 officers and transferred back them t0 their choice of postings. Hence, the applicant herein also requests this esteemed 39 OA No. 2887/2025 organisation either to retain me in the same office or transfer me to nearest office. For your kind perusal I am writing below the choices of station/office where the seat of Asst. Director or equivalent post is lying vacant: -
i. ESIC Hospital Bareily, Uttar Pradesh ii. Regional Office, ESIC Dehradun, Uttarakhand iii. Grade-I. ESIC Branch Office in Rudrapur, Haridwar and Dehradun.
iv. ESIC Hospital Lucknow, UP.
v. ESIC Sub Regional Office, Lucknow, UP vi. ESIC Hospital Noida, UP So, I humbly request you to take my representation and provide me personal hearing and decide my matter office in the interest of justice by applying principal of natural justice and on humanitarian grounds as well thereby either retaining me in the present location i.e., at ESIC hospital Rudrapur for maximum tenure as per latest ESIC transfer policy or transfer me to the above said locations. So I could be readily available to take care of my elderly ailing parents, minor child and wife."
17. The respondents addressed the contentions/grounds raised by the applicant and point wise comments in form of Action Taken Report (ATR) which is summarised at Para 8.1 above which was intended to place before the NLC for a decision. A close reading of the representation of the applicant and point wise comments in form of Action Taken Report (ATR) prepared by the respondents for consideration of NLC reveals that some of the points raised by the applicant in his representation dated 22.10.2025 were left out and the respondents have resorted to selectively chosen the grounds and prepared the ATR on the said grounds for placing before the NLC. Further, the consideration on the contentions of the applicant raised by him in his above-mentioned representation, by the NLC is also not known as no final minutes of NLC after giving the personal hearing to the applicant has been placed by the NEETU Digitally respondents before this Tribunal.
signed by NEETU SHARMA SHARMADate: 2026.04.18 11:47:08+05'30' 40 OA No. 2887/2025
18. In the matter of Union of India Vs. S. L. Abbas (supra), the Hon‟ble Supreme Court has laid down that while ordering the transfer, there is no doubt that the authority must keep in mind the guidelines issued by the Government on the subject. Similarly, if a person makes any representation with respect to his transfer, the appropriate authority must consider the same having regard to the exigencies of administration.
19. The modus operandi of selectively picking up points from the representation dated 22.10.2025, preparing ATR on such points for placing the same before NLC and also not placing the final minutes of NLC after giving personal hearing to the applicant before this Tribunal, throw ample light on the ways of internal functioning of the respondents. This is sufficient to raise doubts on the approach of respondents to adjudicate grievances of their own employees in a judicious manner. There is no need to repeat as it is well known that the respondents are required to conduct their official business in just and fair manner. This clandestine approach of the respondents is sufficient to infer that the respondents are hiding certain facts from scrutiny of this Tribunal and trying to frustrate the order dated 13.10.2025 of this Tribunal. We observe that the respondents have picked up only few points, leaving remaining points aside, and prepared Action Taken Report (ATR), for placing before the NLC for consideration. The consideration on the relevant points by the respondents even while preparing ATR shows NEETU Digitally perfunctory application of mind, thus, we are of the view that it is signed by NEETU SHARMA SHARMADate: 2026.04.18 11:47:08+05'30' sufficient to state that the said exercise is carried out in a 41 OA No. 2887/2025 mechanical manner bereft of application of mind resulting into the mere formality without dealing with the substance of the contentions in an impartial and open-minded manner. This defeats the very purport of the Tribunal‟s Order dated 13.10.2025 and cannot be taken as lawful compliance. We are of the firm opinion that even after consideration by the NLC, the respondents were duty bound to place the final minutes of the NLC after giving the applicant a personal hearing, before this Tribunal. Further, it was imperative upon the respondents to pass a reasoned and speaking order thereafter, which they did not. It is made clear that NLC minutes marked as Annexure-12 of OA dates back to 09.07.2025 which is prior to the order dated 13.10.2025 of this Tribunal. Thereafter, neither the applicant not the respondents have placed any minutes of the NLC after the personal hearing of applicant and vide which it has considered the ATR or examined the points raised by the applicant in his representation dated 22.10.2025.
20. By adopting such process, the respondents have tried to evade effective implementation by merely placing on record brief point wise remarks and so-called Action Taken Report (ATR) without undertaking any meaningful and reasoned consideration of the applicant‟s grievance. We further observe that there is no independent application of mind to dwell upon the specific issues raised by the applicant. It appears that this exercise has been carried out to give an impression of formal and procedural NEETU Digitally compliance, however, in reality such compliance can neither be signed by NEETU SHARMA SHARMADate: 2026.04.18 11:47:08+05'30' considered as a reasoned and speaking order nor comes good when 42 OA No. 2887/2025 tested on the parameters laid down by this Tribunal in its Order dated 13.10.2025.
21. In view of above position and due to aforesaid reasons, we are not convinced with the way the respondents have handled this matter. We observe strong and convincing reasons to intervene in this matter and dispose of this Original Application with the following directions: -
(a) The relieving order dated 17.07.2025 (Annexure-A/1), Transfer Order dated 28.03.2025 (Annexure-A/2) and NLC order dated 09.07.2025 (Annexure-A/12) (issued prior to the order of this Tribunal dated 13.10.2025) and there being apparent inconsistency in its date as reflected in the index (09.06.2025) and in the relief clause (09.07.2025), is quashed and set aside;
(b) Respondents are directed to consider the posting of the applicant at any one of the 06 (six) options given by him in his representation dated 22.10.2025 submitted in pursuance to the Order dated 13.10.2025 of this Tribunal, within 03 (three) weeks of receipt of the certified copy of this Order;
(c) Interim order dated 30.07.2025 and order dated 13.10.2025 reiterating the aforesaid interim order to the respondents to consider releasing pay and allowance of the applicant is made final. The respondents are NEETU Digitally signed by NEETU SHARMA directed to take decision to release pay and allowance of SHARMADate: 2026.04.18 11:47:08+05'30' 43 OA No. 2887/2025 the applicant within above mentioned 03 (three) weeks as per law.
22. Pending M.A. (s), if any, stand closed.
23. Before parting, we direct the respondents to ensure a transparent, fair and just administrative mechanism to handle service-related grievances of their own employees in an effective manner. We observe that in the present case, the respondents handled the matter in most casual and unprofessional manner. We are pained to record the defiance of respondents towards examining the matter in consonance to the Order dated 13.10.2025 of this Tribunal. However, with great restrain, we refrain from imposing heavy cost on the respondents.
(Rajinder Kashyap) (Ajay Pratap Singh)
Member (A) Member (J)
/neetu/
NEETU Digitally signed by
NEETU SHARMA
SHARMADate: 2026.04.18
11:47:08+05'30'