Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2026 Supreme(Online)(CAT) 4959

CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
Chhabilendra Roul, Member (A), Rajveer Singh Verma, Member (J)
Kuldeep Kannaujia – Appellant
Versus
Controller General of Patents, Designs & Trade Marks (CGPDTM) – Respondent
O.A. No. 1380/2026

Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr. Shashwat Parihar
For the Respondents: Mr. Dilbagh Singh

Mechanical rejection of transfer representations without reasoned consideration of individual difficulties is impermissible; authorities must pass speaking orders balancing administrative exigency with personal hardships per policy guidelines.

Headnote:(A) Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 - Section 19 - Transfer Policy - Rotational transfer and spousal posting guidelines - Applicant challenged transfer order as arbitrary, violative of policy requiring rotational transfers in descending order of tenure and spousal posting at same station as far as possible, and mechanical rejection of representations on medical/family grounds without reasons - Tribunal held mechanical rejection of representations without specific consideration of individual difficulties impermissible; administrative authorities must pass reasoned speaking orders addressing personal hardships alongside exigencies - Transfer and rejection orders quashed; fresh consideration directed with status quo till reasoned order passed. (Paras 1-14)

(B) Service Law - Transfers - Scope of judicial review - While transfers are incidents of service exercisable in public interest/administrative exigency with no vested right to particular posting, even if violative of guidelines, courts/tribunals intervene where rejection of representations is mechanical/non-speaking; guidelines do not confer enforceable rights but mandate fair, sensitive consideration of individual cases to maintain employee morale without compromising efficiency. (Paras 8-13)

Facts of the case:
Applicant, holding Group ‘A’ post, transferred from one office to another; wife posted at different location without corresponding office there, two minor children; representations on compelling grounds rejected mechanically in common orders for multiple employees citing administrative exigency without addressing specifics; sought quashing of transfer, rejections and interim stay.

Findings of Court:
Mechanical disposal of representations without reasoned consideration of individual difficulties unacceptable for senior officers; balance administrative prerogative with sensitive handling of personal issues to enhance morale and public service delivery; no need for full trial, disposed at admission with directions.

Issues: Whether transfer violated policy on rotational tenure and spousal posting; validity of mechanical rejection orders; entitlement to interim stay and reasoned disposal of representations.

Ratio Decidendi: Representations must receive specific, reasoned consideration addressing individual grounds; non-speaking rejections reflect poor administrative attitude; public interest includes employee welfare/morale, not just exigency; quash mechanical orders, direct fresh reasoned decision per policy/guidelines.

Result: OA disposed at admission; transfer and rejection orders quashed; respondents to reconsider representation afresh with speaking order within 15 days; status quo maintained till then.

Table of Content
1. challenges transfer order and representations on family grounds (Para 1 , 2)
2. violations of transfer policy and spousal posting guidelines (Para 3 , 4 , 7)
3. mechanical rejection of individual representations (Para 10 , 11)
4. require reasoned orders considering individual difficulties (Para 12 , 13 , 14)

ORDER (ORAL)

1. The present OA has been filed by the applicant under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunal Act, 1985 seeking the following relief:

“(a) Quash and set aside the impugned Transfer Order dated 09.01.2026, bearing No. CGPDTM-11018(11)/1/2022-CGPO/2344, whereby the Applicant has been transferred from Delhi to Mumbai, being arbitrary, non- speaking, and in violation of the Revised Transfer Policy dated 04.07.2025;

b) Quash and set aside the rejection orders dated 17.02.2026 and 08.04.2026, whereby the representations submitted by the Applicant on compelling medical grounds have been mechanically rejected without recording any reasons and without due consideration of the medical evidence;

(c) Pass any other or further order(s) as this Hon’ble Tribunal may deem fit, proper, and necessary in the interest of justice, equity, and fair play.

2. The learned counsel for the applicant states that the applicant is seeking quashing and setting aside of impugned order dated 09.01.2026 vide which the applicant has been transferred from New Delhi to Mumbai. Learned counsel for the applicant states that his wife is posted as Scientist at Central Pollution Control Board (CPBC), New Delhi. He further states that the CPCB is not having its office in Mumbai. Learned counsel for the applicant further states that the family of the applicant has a two minor children to take care of.

3. Learned counsel for the applicant referred to the guidelines issued by DOP&T which have been referred in clause 5.8 of the Transfer Policy issued by the respondents on 04.07.2025. The guidelines specifically mention that husband and the wife should as far as possible, be posted at the same station. Learned counsel for the applicant further states that the respondents have also violated other clauses of the said transfer policy. He referred to 3.1 of the Transfer Policy which is reproduced below:-

“3.1 Rotational Transfer

(i) Rotational transfer will be effected in respect of officers who have already completed prescribed station tenure as on the cut off date.

(ii) In case of rotational transfer, the period of stay in a post/station shall be counted as on 30^th November of the concerned year.

(iii) For rotational transfer, officers shall be considered in descending order of their length of stay at a station.”

4. He further states that there are certain employees who have spent more than 8 years tenure and some have spent as good as 20 years of tenure who have not been transferred out and the respondents have not considered the rotational transfer based on descending order of tenure. Moreover, learned counsel for the applicant states that the applicant submitted two representations dated 14.01.2026 followed by another representation dated 18.02.2026. The respondents, vide their common orders dated 17.02.2026 and 08.04.2026, without assigning any reason, disposed of the representations in an arbitrary manner. The orders as mentioned above, not mention the specific problems faced by the applicant and no ground has been mentioned against the applicant, while rejecting his representation.

5. Issue notice. Mr. Dilbagh Singh who appears on advance service accepts notice. Learned counsel for the respondents seeks four weeks’ time to file counter affidavit in respect of the OA.

6. At this stage, learned counsel for the applicant seeks interim relief as prayed is para 9 of the OA, which is reproduced below:-

“(a) Stay the operation, implementation and effect of the impugned Transfer order dated 09.01.2026, bearing No. CGPDTM- 11018(11)/1/2022-CGPO/2340, whereby the applicant has been transferred from Delhi to Mumbai (b) Restrain the respondents from relieving

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2026 Supreme(Online)(CAT) 4959

CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNALChhabilendra Roul, Member (A), Rajveer Singh Verma, Member (J)Kuldeep Kannaujia – AppellantVersusController General of Patents, Designs & Trade Marks (CGPDTM) – RespondentO.A. No. 1380/2026

Mechanical rejection of transfer representations without reasoned consideration of individual difficulties is impermissible; authorities must pass speaking orders balancing administrative exigency with personal hardships per policy guidelines.

Cases Referred (2)

CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
Chhabilendra Roul, Member (A), Rajveer Singh Verma, Member (J)
Kuldeep Kannaujia – Appellant
Versus
Controller General of Patents, Designs & Trade Marks (CGPDTM) – Respondent
O.A. No. 1380/2026