Transfer orders require reasoned speaking rejection of representations considering individual hardships and policy guidelines.

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 08.12.2025, bearing No. CGPDTM-11018(11)/1/2022-CGPO/1904, 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 as well as DOpt guidelines on spouse posting

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) 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 08.12.2025 vide which the applicant has been transferred from New Delhi to Mumbai. Learned counsel for the applicant states that has wife Smt. Prashansha Dang is a permanent Group B Gazetted Officer posted in Ministry of Home Affairs, New Delhi. He further states that his father is a kidney donor and its suffering from chronic hepatitis-B with NAFLD requiring lifelong medication and mandatory periodic screening usefully dependent on the applicant for medical care and assistance.

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. 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 10.12.2025. The respondents, vide their common order dated 20.01.2026 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. Awanish Kumar 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 pr