Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2026 Supreme(Online)(CAT) 5080

CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
Ajay Pratap Singh, Member (J), Rajinder Kashyap, Member (A)
Kedar Singh – Appellant
Versus
Employee State Insurance Corporation – Respondent
O.A.|O.A. No. 1447/2025

Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr. Vikram Singh Nayal with Mr. Dushyant Bhargava
For the Respondents: Mr. Amit Chawla

Transfer orders quashed for arbitrary selection without criterion, policy violation on tenure, perfunctory grievance consideration ignoring points, and non-compliance with directions for reasoned NLC order post-hearing despite natural justice mandate.

Headnote:(A) Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 - Section 19 - Transfer of public servant - ESIC Transfer Policy, 2024 - Clauses 4.3, 5.2, 7.9 - Applicant challenged transfer order, relieving order, and NLC decision on grounds of policy violation (premature transfer before completing station tenure of 10 years or office tenure of 5 years where only one office exists), non-communication of transfer circular depriving choice exercise, violation of natural justice, and humanitarian grounds (family medical needs) - Tribunal quashed orders noting respondents' failure to adhere to criterion for selection amidst manpower shortage, perfunctory consideration of representation ignoring points raised, mechanical ATR preparation, and non-placement of final reasoned NLC minutes post-personal hearing despite directions - Transfer is incident of service but interference warranted if arbitrary, mala fide, or violative of policy/natural justice; authorities must consider representations with application of mind and exigencies of administration - Directions issued to post applicant at one of preferred stations and release pay/allowances. (Paras 13, 15, 18-21)

(B) Service Law - Judicial review of transfer orders - Limited scope; no interference absent mala fides, statutory violation, or arbitrariness - However, where no criterion disclosed for selecting employee neither senior-most nor junior-most for transfer due to shortage, and policy guidelines not followed with reasoned consideration, orders liable to be set aside - Transparent mechanism mandated for grievance handling. (Paras 13.1, 13.2, 23)

Facts of the case:
Applicant, holding transferable Group B post on ad-hoc basis, transferred after 5 years 8 months at station with single office to region with acute officer shortage - Representations rejected by NLC without full reasoned consideration; Tribunal directed fresh hearing but respondents submitted selective ATR and no final minutes, prompting quashing of orders.

Findings of Court:
Impugned orders quashed for arbitrary selection without criterion, policy misinterpretation, selective/mechanical handling of grievances, and defiance of Tribunal directions on reasoned consideration - Posting at preferred station within 3 weeks; interim pay orders made absolute.

Issues: Whether transfer violated policy tenure limits, natural justice (non-communication of circular, perfunctory NLC review), and warranted interference despite administrative exigency; adequacy of respondents' compliance with Tribunal orders for reasoned hearing.

Ratio Decidendi: Transfer orders amenable to review if vitiated by arbitrariness, policy violation, or non-application of mind to representations/humanitarian grounds; authorities must follow transparent criterion, fully address grievances post-hearing, and place reasoned outcomes before court - Selective ATR and absent final minutes indicate mala fides in compliance.

Result: Original Application allowed; impugned orders quashed, posting and pay directions issued.

Table of Content
1. applicant's service history and family medical grounds against transfer. (Para 1 , 2)
2. applicant's contentions on policy violation and natural justice breaches. (Para 4)
3. respondents defend transfer citing administrative exigency and policy compliance. (Para 5)
4. procedural disputes, nlc non-compliance, and tribunal interim directions. (Para 6 , 7 , 8 , 9)
5. transfer as service incident; limited judicial review absent mala fides. (Para 11 , 12 , 13)
6. respondents' arbitrary handling and failure to apply reasoned consideration. (Para 15 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20)
7. quash transfer orders; direct compassionate reposting and payment. (Para 21 , 22 , 23)

Hon’ble Mr. Rajinder Kashyap, Member (A):

By filing the present O.A. under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, the applicant has sought the following reliefs: -

"(a) To Quash and set aside the impugned relieving order dated 17.07.2025 and Transfer order dated 28.03.2025 issued by the Respondent No. 1 transferring the Applicant from ESIC Hospital, Rudrapur, i.e., Regional Office Dehradun, Uttarakhand, to Regional Office, Tamil Nadu in the interest of justice;

(b) To Quash and set aside the impugned speaking order/minutes/decision of NLC dated 09.07.2025 issued by the NLC reconstituted by Respondent No. 1 thereby upholding the transfer of the Applicant from ESIC Hospital, Rudrapur, i.e., Regional Office Dehradun, Uttarakhand, to Regional Office, Tamil Nadu in the interest of justice.

(c) To direct the Respondents to allow the Applicant to continue at his present station in accordance with Clause 4.3 and Clause 7.9 of the ESIC Transfer Policy 2024, in the interest of justice;

(d) Cost of the proceedings may also be awarded in favour of the applicant and against the respondents.

(e) And to grant any other or further relief/s which this Hon‟ble tribunal may deems fit and proper under the circumstances of the case."

FACTS OF THE CASE

2. The brief facts of the case, as stated by the applicant, are that he initially joined the services of the Employees‟ State Insurance Corporation (ESIC) on 18.05.2009 as Insurance Inspector/Office Superintendent/Branch Manager at Regional Office, Chennai. Thereafter, he was transferred to ESIC Hospital, Basaidarapur, Delhi on 01.05.2012. It is further stated that the applicant was promoted on ad-hoc basis to the post of Assistant Director on SHARMA N D E a0t E e T : U 20 6S 2 H 6. A 0 R 4.. M 118 A 2.2016 and was posted at Mansa, Punjab. Subsequently, vide order dated 23.07.2019, he was transferred to ESIC Hospital, Rudrapur (Uttarakhand) under Regional Office, Dehradun, where he has been serving since then. The applicant submits that in December, 2024, he had to avail leave due to the serious medical condition of his mother, who underwent bilateral knee replacement surgery, and requires continuous care. It is further submitted that his father is also a senior citizen suffering from age-related ailments and the applicant is the sole earning member of the family.

2.1 It is the case of the applicant that the respondents introduced a new Transfer Policy dated 19.12.2024 (Annexure-A/3) and thereafter issued a circular dated 17.01.2025 (Annexure-A/4) inviting options for Annual General Transfer (AGT-2025). However, according to the applicant, the said circular was never communicated to him and he was deprived of the opportunity to exercise his option for choice posting. The grievance of the applicant arose when the respondents issued the impugned transfer order dated 28.03.2025 (Annexure-A/2), whereby the applicant was transferred from Rudrapur (Dehradun Region) to Tamil Nadu Region. The applicant contends that he has not completed the prescribed tenure and his transfer vide the impugned transfer order is contrary to the Transfer Policy, 2024.

2.2 Being aggrieved, the applicant submitted representations dated 01.04.2025 and 07.04.2025 [Annexure-A/6 (Colly.)] to the competent authorities requesting reconsideration of his transfer on persona

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2026 Supreme(Online)(CAT) 5080

CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNALAjay Pratap Singh, Member (J), Rajinder Kashyap, Member (A)Kedar Singh – AppellantVersusEmployee State Insurance Corporation – RespondentO.A.|O.A. No. 1447/2025

Transfer orders quashed for arbitrary selection without criterion, policy violation on tenure, perfunctory grievance consideration ignoring points, and non-compliance with directions for reasoned NLC order post-hearing despite natural justice mandate.

Cases Referred (2)

CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
Ajay Pratap Singh, Member (J), Rajinder Kashyap, Member (A)
Kedar Singh – Appellant
Versus
Employee State Insurance Corporation – Respondent
O.A.|O.A. No. 1447/2025