Transfer authorities must pass reasoned speaking orders addressing individual hardships like medical grounds, despite administrative exigency prerogative.

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 rejection orders dated 17.02.2026 and 08.04.2026, whereby the representations submitted by the Applicant has been transferred from Delhi to Chennai 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 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) Direct the Respondents to retain the Applicant at his present place of posting at Delhi, or in the alternative, to consider his case for posting at a medically suitable location in accordance with Para 3.4 of the Revised Transfer Policy dated 04.07.2025, by passing a reasoned and speaking order (d) 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 Chennai. Learned counsel for the applicant states that his wife Shrimati Reena Narula is a Central Government employees serving as Investigator in the office of the Development Commissioner MSME and is presently posted at New Delhi. Council for the applicant for the states that is wife is expecting a child and is in final stage of pregnancy and required medical and requires constant monitoring emotional support and immediate availability of the spouse for handling medical exigencies.

3. Learned counsel for the applicant referred to the guidelines issued by DOP&T 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. The respondents are supposed to consider the case of the applicant and his spouse and as far as possible, they should have posted them at same place of posting. In violation of such guidelines, the respondents have transferred the applicant from Delhi to Mumbai. 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 representation dated 14.01.2026 . The respondents, vide their common order dated 17.02.2026, without assigning any reason, disposed of the representations in an arbitrary manner. The order 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