A transfer order of a government employee is an incident of service and is not subject to judicial interference unless it violates statutory provisions, is issued without jurisdiction, or is proven to be actuated by personal malafides.

O R D E R (ORAL)

As per: Ajay Pratap Singh, Member (Judicial)

M.A./1627/2026 – Application for exemption.

In view of averments made in the M.A. – application for exemption is allowed being just an exception.

2. Accordingly, M.A./1627/2026 stands disposed of.

O.A./1241/2026

Heard the parties.

2. The applicant is working as Assistant Director, ESIC, HQ, New Delhi has challenged transfer order no. 43/2026 dated 25.03.2026 (Annexure A-1), whereby competent authority, on the recommendation of Transfer Committee, has ordered Annual General Transfer for the Transfer Year 2026 in the cadre of Assistant Director with immediate effect in public interest from ESIC, HQ, New Delhi to RO, Himachal Pradesh.

THE PRAYER

3. Present O.A. has been filed by the applicant under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, seeking the following relief(s):-

“a. Quash the Transfer Order for Serial No 5 in the Transfer order No 43 of 2026 File No A-22/13/1/AGT/Gr. B/2026 dated 25.03.2026 passed by the respondent on page one of combined transfer order passed by the respondent for applicant transferring from ESIC HQ, New Delhi to RO, Himachal Pradesh (Annexure A 1).

b. Allow the cost.”

FACTS IN BRIEF

4. Briefly stated facts as adumbrated by the applicant in the O.A. are that the applicant was posted as Assistant Director, ESIC HQ, New Delhi vide order dated 18.05.2023 and performing duties with dedication, integrity and honesty and has merely completed two years and above ten months in ESIC HQ, New Delhi, which is even less than three years duration, which is minimum required under Transfer Policy. The respondents have violated Para 7.6 of Transfer Policy dated 19.12.2024, whereby more than 19 officers who have completed more than six years in same posting in Delhi, NCR and even more than seven of them have completed more than nine years have not been transferred and applicant has been discriminated as he has been transferred within three years of service at ESIC HQ, New Delhi.

SUBMISSIONS

5. Learned counsel appearing for the applicant much emphasized that impugned transfer order qua the applicant is contrary to Para 4.1 and 7.6 of Transfer Guidelines dated 19.12.2024 (Annexure A-5). So also the transfer order qua the applicant is actuated by malafides as the respondents have not transferred Senior Assistant Directors, who have already completed more than nine years of service in Delhi, NCR and applicant has been discriminated.

6. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents, at the outset, submits that the scope of judicial interference in transfer matters is limited and applicant has been transferred in public interest as evident from the impugned transfer order dated 25.03.2026 and the applicant is placed at serial no. 5 in impugned transfer order dated 25.03.2026 is admittedly transferred on administrative ground in public interest and no interference is warranted in the present case. So also applicant has neither impleaded any authority in his personal capacity and plea of malafides cannot be accepted. The applicant has not been discriminated as he has been transferred in same capacity and in administrative exigency and the petition lacks merits and deserves to be dismissed.

DISCUSSION

7. Heard with consent. We have considered the matter. This is a trite law that scope of judicial interference in transfer matters in exercise of power of judicial review is limited:-

(i) Transfe