Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2026 Supreme(Online)(CAT) 5119

CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
Chhabilendra Roul, member, Rajveer Singh Verma, member
Raj Singh – Appellant
Versus
Controller General of Patents, Designs & Trade Marks – Respondent
O.A. No. 1381/2026

Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Shashwat Parihar
For the Respondents: Satpal Singh

While transfer is an incident of service and subject to limited judicial review, administrative authorities must address individual representations against transfer orders with 'reasoned and speaking' orders rather than mechanical rejections, especially when specific hardships are cited.

Headnote:(A) Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 - Section 19 - Transfer - Challenge to transfer order on grounds of personal medical hardship - Requirement of reasoned and speaking order - While courts generally do not interfere with administrative transfers made in public interest or administrative exigency, the rejection of an employee’s representation regarding personal hardship requires a reasoned response addressing the specific points raised rather than a mechanical disposal. (Paras 11, 12, 13)

(B) Judicial Review - Transfer matters - Scope is limited but includes ensuring that representations against transfers are handled fairly and with due consideration of specific grievances - Mechanical rejection of representations constitutes a failure of administrative duty towards senior officers. (Paras 12, 13)

Facts of the case:
The applicant, an Assistant Controller of Patents & Designs, challenged his transfer from Delhi to Mumbai, citing his mother’s serious medical conditions and his primary role as a caregiver. He alleged that his representations to the authorities were rejected in a mechanical manner without addressing his specific hardships.

Findings of Court:
The Tribunal found that the respondents' order disposing of the representations was mechanical and lacked specific grounds addressing the individual difficulties of the applicant. The court emphasized that while administrative bodies have the prerogative to transfer employees for exigencies, they must balance this with sensitivity towards the employees' morale and specific medical/personal issues.

Issues: Whether the transfer order is liable to be quashed due to the mechanical disposal of the employee’s representation regarding personal medical hardship and whether the court should interfere with the administrative transfer process.

Ratio Decidendi: Where an employee submits a representation against a transfer based on genuine personal hardship, the administrative authority, while having the prerogative to transfer, must pass a reasoned and speaking order addressing those specific grievances to maintain administrative fairness and employee morale.

Result: Transfer orders quashed; respondents directed to reconsider the representation and pass a reasoned order within 15 days.

Table of Content
1. applicant challenges transfer order citing medical hardship and violation of transfer policy guidelines. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6)
2. respondents justify transfer as an administrative prerogative for man-power rationalization. (Para 7 , 8 , 9)
3. mechanical rejection of personal representation warrants reconsideration via reasoned and speaking orders. (Para 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14)

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/1906, 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) 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.

(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 09.01.2026 vide which the applicant has been transferred from New Delhi to Mumbai. Learned counsel for the applicant states that The Applicant’s mother is suffering from multiple serious medical conditions including uterine fibroids, splenomegaly, hypothyroidism, and diabetes, and is undergoing continuous treatment at a specialized hospital in Delhi under the supervision of a treating doctor. Her treatment involves regular consultations, diagnostic investigations including USG and CT scans, and continuous monitoring under the same medical team. Due to her condition, she is unable to perform daily activities independently and is fully dependent upon the applicant for care, medical coordination, and emergency support.

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 two representations dated 09.12.2025 followed by another representation dated 19.02.2026. The respondents, vide their common order dated 20.01.2026 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. Satpal 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 below:-

“(a) Stay the operation, implementation and effect of the impugned Transfe

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2026 Supreme(Online)(CAT) 5119

CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNALChhabilendra Roul, member, Rajveer Singh Verma, memberRaj Singh – AppellantVersusController General of Patents, Designs & Trade Marks – RespondentO.A. No. 1381/2026

While transfer is an incident of service and subject to limited judicial review, administrative authorities must address individual representations against transfer orders with 'reasoned and speaking' orders rather than mechanical rejections, especially when specific hardships are cited.

Cases Referred (2)

CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
Chhabilendra Roul, member, Rajveer Singh Verma, member
Raj Singh – Appellant
Versus
Controller General of Patents, Designs & Trade Marks – Respondent
O.A. No. 1381/2026