While transfer is an incident of service and governed by administrative prerogative, the rejection of an employee's representation regarding personal hardships must not be mechanical; it requires the authority to pass a reasoned and speaking order that specifically addresses the individual grounds raised.

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/2361, 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 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 station in accordance with the applicable transfer policy, 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 Mumbai. Learned counsel for the applicant states that his father is suffering from stage-III-B Non Small Cell Lung Cancer (Adenocarcinoma) and is undergoing chemotherapy and immunotherapy at Rajiv Gandhi Cancer Institutional Research Centre Delhi under continuous and specialised medical supervision neurological conditions including asthma chronic permanent disease type two respiratory failure and cognitive impairment requirements and continuous care. Both the parents are in highly vulnerable and medically dependent condition rendering the applicant presented Delhi is dispensable.

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. 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 30th 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 13.01.2026. The respondents, vide their common order dated 08.04.2026, 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.

5. Issue notice. Mr. YP 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 belo