Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Narshi Ram Balai vs Employees State Insurance Corporation ... on 18 April, 2026
1
Central Administrative Tribunal
Principal Bench
O.A. No.1462/2026
New Delhi, this the 18th day of April, 2026
Hon'ble Mr. Sanjeeva Kumar, Member (A)
Hon'ble Mr. Ajay Pratap Singh, Member (J)
Narshi Ram Balai (Aged 45 years), s/o Prabhu Dayal
Balai, R/o ESIC Medical College & Hospital, Residential
Quarters C-2/101, N.I.T. Faridabad, Haryana.
Email: [email protected]
+91 8860722149
Presently working as:
Social Security Officer,
ESIC Medical College & Hospital,
Faridabad, Haryana-121002.
...Applicant
Versus
1. Employees' State Insurance Corporation, through
its Director General, Panchdeep Bhawan, Comrade
Indrajeet Gupta Marg, New Delhi - 110 002.
[email protected]
....Respondent
For Applicant: Sh. Prateek Dhanda, Advocate
For Respondents: Dr. Divya Swamy, Standing Counsel
with Ms. Nidhi Kumar, Advocate.
ORDER (ORAL)
By Hon'ble Mr. Sanjeeva Kumar, Member (A):
Heard the parties with consent.
2. The challenge in the present OA is to an Order No.54 of year 2026 dated 10.04.2026 (Annexure A-1) whereby the applicant working as Social Security Officer in office of ESIC Medical College & NH-3, Faridabad, Haryana has been transferred to R.O., Mumbai, Maharashtra by the competent authority on the recommendations of the Transfer Committee in public interest, with immediate effect.
ABHAY ABHAY CHAUDHARY CHAUDHARY 2026.04.21 10:40:19+05'30' 2 OA No. 1462/2026
3. Grievance of the applicant as projected by learned counsel for the applicant can be summarized as under:-
(i) The applicant has been working on the post of S.S.O. for almost ten years within Delhi-NCR. The respondents have issued impugned transfer order qua the applicant from post of SSO, ESIC Hospital NH-3, Faridabad to R.O., Mumbai and same is in contravention of Clauses 5.2, 7.2 and 7.3 of the transfer policy of S.S.O. with All India Transfer liability dated 18.12.2024 (Annexure A/4). There are clear vacancies, hence, impugned transfer order qua the applicant is de hors Clauses 7.2 and 7.3 of transfer policy dated 18.12.2024.
(ii) So also applicant furnished options for transfer to Alwar and Jaipur. But respondents have transferred him to R.O., Mumbai and his daughter has entered in Class-X for session 2026-2027.
(iii) Applicant is suffering from Locomotor Disability caused by Post-Polio-Paralysis and as per Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 and Clause (4) of O.M. dated 02.02.2024 - guidelines for certain facilities to persons with disability and for efficient performance of their duties; the clause 2(H) - provides for preference in transfer and posting and may be exempted or posted on given choice stations.
4. Learned counsel for the applicant raised no other point.
5. Learned counsel for the respondents appears on advance service and submits on instructions from the respondents that Applicant has completed 10 years at NCR- Delhi and submitted no documents to show that his daughter has taken admission in Class-X in Delhi and he has given options for transfer. He further submitted that there are no vacancies in the post of SSOs at Delhi NCR. The ABHAY ABHAY CHAUDHARY CHAUDHARY 2026.04.21 10:40:19+05'30' 3 OA No. 1462/2026 impugned order of transfer qua the applicant has been issued in public interest. Hon'ble Supreme Court in Union of India vs. S.L. Abbas, AIR 1993 SC 2444 has held that the guidelines do not confer upon a government employee an enforceable right unless an order of transfer is violative of statutory mandatory provisions or malafide in nature, the courts should not interfere with it.
6. Learned counsel for the applicant also contended that Hon'ble Supreme in case of Union of India vs. S.L. Abbas (supra). Their Lordships further observed that while ordering an order of transfer, the authority must keep in mind the guidelines issued by the Government. This Tribunal, in a similar case titled as R.K. Sharma vs. Union of India & Ors. (OA No.749/2019 (Delhi), vide order dated 09.05.2013, disposed of the OA with direction to the respondents to pass a fresh order.
7. Learned counsel for the applicant, after arguing at substantial length, submits that the applicant would be satisfied if respondents are directed to consider applicant's pending representation dated 13.04.2026 in light of the Transfer Policy dated 18.12.2024 and DoPT OM dated 02.02.2024, and till then applicant be allowed to continue. So also, in ESIC matters in case of Shyam Sunder Kaushik Vs. ESIC [OA No.1279/2026 decided on 08.04.2026], Jitendra Chawla, OA No.1399/2026 vide order dated 16.04.2026, Sushil Kumar Lakra, OA No.1413/2026 vide order dated 16.04.2026, OA No.1255/2026, Sugan Lal Meena vs. ESIC, vide order dated 07.04.2026, OA No. 1414/2026, Kapil Dev vide order dated 16.04.2026 and in OA No.1415/2026 Manoj Kumar and OA No.1416/2026, direction has been issued to decide pending representations till then allowed to continue and presses for interim relief.
ABHAY ABHAY CHAUDHARY CHAUDHARY 2026.04.21 10:40:19+05'30' 4 OA No. 1462/2026
8. Learned counsel for the respondents argued that so far as order dated 07.04.2026 to decide representation in case of Sugan Lal Meena vs. ESIC (supra) has no applicability in the present case. In case of Sugan Lal Meena (supra) working as Joint Director in R.O., he was transferred pursuant to different transfer policy dated 19.12.2024 and within less than one year with 12 vacancies already available and his transfer was not due, hence, he could not furnish options OnLine, not open for employees not completed minimum tenure. So also, on concession coming from the respondents that he would not be relieved and the interim Order to continue till representation was granted. Thus, the order dated 07.04.2026 in case of Sugan Lal Meena (supra) and other cases cited by learned counsel for the applicant has no applicability in this case as no concession has been given in the case.
9. Learned counsel for the respondents, after arguing for some time, fairly submits that orders cited by the applicant pertains to ESIC of different cadre and policy is not same in this case and interim protection granted on different facts of each case on concession and has no universal application. The respondents have granted concession in above cited ESIC cases to consider the case sympathetically and till representation is considered, concession granted by respondent to not to relieve. So far the present case, opposes for any interim protection. So also submits that settled position of law that judgment has got no universal application rather the judgment is based on facts of each case. In Dr. Subramanian Swamy vs. State of Tamil Nadu, (2014) SCC 75. Their Lordships in para 47 held that it is a settled legal proposition that ratio of any decision must be understood in background of facts of that case and ABHAY ABHAY CHAUDHARY CHAUDHARY 2026.04.21 10:40:19+05'30' 5 OA No. 1462/2026 case is only an authority for what it decides and not what logically follows from it. In case of Nair Service Society vs. Dr. T. Beermasthan, (2009) 5 SCC 545. Their Lordships observed that judgment in service jurisprudence should be understood with reference to particular service rules in State Government governing the field. The policy applicable in the case in hand is different than ESIC cases cited hereinabove and facts are also not same.
10. Heard with consent. We have considered the matter. In view of above submissions and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case.
11. The Supreme Court recently in the case of Namrata Verma Vs. State of U.P. and others by order dated 06.09.2021 passed in SLP (Civil) No.36717/2017 has held that "it is not for the employee to insist to transfer him/her and/or not to transfer him/her at a particular place. It is for the employer to transfer an employee considering the requirement. Until and unless the transfer is vitiated by mala fide or is made in violation of any statutory provisions, the Court cannot interfere with the order of transfer. The Hon'ble Supreme Court, while dealing with the scope of judicial review in the matter of transfer, held that transfer is an incidence of service and normally should not be interfered with by the Court. If any administrative guidelines recalling transfer of an employee are violated, at best the same confers the right on the employee to approach the higher authorities for redressal of his grievance. [See: Union of India and Others v.S.L. Abbas, (1993) 4 SCC 357, State Bank of India v. Anjan Sanyal and others, (2001) 5 SCC 508, Public Services Tribunal Bar Association v. State of U.P. and another, (2003) 4 SCC 104, State of U.P. and Others v. Gobardhan Lal, (2004) 1 SCC 402, R.S. ABHAY ABHAY CHAUDHARY CHAUDHARY 2026.04.21 10:40:19+05'30' 6 OA No. 1462/2026 Chaudhary and Others v. State of M.P. and Others, ILR (2007) MP 1329, Government of Andhra Pradesh v. G.Venkata 4 WP. No. 4738/2017 (Braj Kishore Paliwal Vs. State of M.P. and others) Ratnam, (2008) 9 SCC 345 and State of Haryana and Others v. Kashmir Singh and Another, (2010) 13 SCC 306].
12. In case of Rajendra Roy vs. Union of India (1993) 1 SCC 148. Their Lordships observed that "in transfer matters personal difficulties are matters for consideration of the department and if such representation is made too about personal hardships, being suffered by the applicant in view of impugned Order, it is reasonable expected that the same should be considered by the department as expeditiously as practicable".
13. In case of Shyam Sunder Kaushik, Jitendra Chawla, Sugan Lal Meena, Kapiv Dev, Manoj Kumar and Sushil Kumar Lakra vs. ESIC (supra), we have proceeded on several other circumstances and policy dated 19.12.2024 which existed in those cases and the concession by respondents and in this case on instructions of respondents. In this case in our hand, there is no such concession forthcoming to grant some ad-interim protection.
14. Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in WP(C) No. 8623/2023, Alok Kumar Verma vs. Union of India. Their Lordships has held that the law that developed on the point and observed that as things stand today, the only real ground on which a transfer can be challenged is if it is actuated by malafides, but no such allegation much less material or evidence is forthcoming in present case.
15. For the reasons stated hereinabove, the competent authority amongst the respondents is directed to dwell upon ABHAY ABHAY CHAUDHARY CHAUDHARY 2026.04.21 10:40:19+05'30' 7 OA No. 1462/2026 each contention in pending representation dated 13.04.2026 (Annexure A-2) by passing a reasoned and speaking order as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of order passed today.
16. There shall be no order as to costs.
17. Pending Miscellaneous Application(s), if any, also stands closed.
(Ajay Pratap Singh) (Sanjeeva Kumar)
Member (J) Member (A)
/abhay/
ABHAY
ABHAY CHAUDHARY
CHAUDHARY 2026.04.21
10:40:19+05'30'