Rejection of employee representations against transfer must be reasoned and speaking, addressing individual hardships sympathetically alongside administrative exigencies; mechanical orders quashed with direction for fresh consideration.

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:

“Pending final disposal of the present Original Application, it is most respectfully prayed that this Hon’ble Tribunal may kindly be pleased to:

(a) Stay the operation, implementation and effect of the impugned Transfer Order dated 09.01.2026, bearing No. No. CGPDTM- 11018(11)/1/2022-CGPO/2340, whereby the Applicant has been transferred from Delhi to Kolkata;

(b) Restrain the Respondents from relieving the Applicant from his present posting at the Delhi Patent Office, during the pendency of the present OA;

(c) Pass such other or further interim orders as this Hon’ble Tribunal may deem fit and proper in the interest of justice.”

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 Kolkata. He states that the applicant’s wife is serving in UCO Bank at New Delhi. The applicant’s wife got herself transferred from Lucknow to New Delhi in the year 2023 and the applicant’s wife has to complete minimum tenure of 5 years before being transferred out from the present place of posting. Learned counsel for the applicant states that the applicant’s wife got transferred on spouse ground. The applicant’s wife made strenuous efforts and applied for transfer to Delhi on spouse grounds and after trying for last 2 years, she succeeded.

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 Kolkata. Learned counsel for the applicant further states that the respondents have also violated other clauses of the said transfer policy. He referred to 3.13 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 09.01.2026 followed by another representation dated 19.02.2026. 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. SN Verma who appears on advance service accepts notice. Learned counsel for the respondents seeks four weeks’ tim