Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2026 Supreme(Online)(CAT) 5120

CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
Chhabilendra Roul, Member (A), Rajveer Singh Verma, Member (J)
Alok Mishra – Appellant
Versus
Controller General of Patents, Designs & Trade Marks (CGPDTM) – Respondent
O.A. No. 1384/2026

Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Shashwat Parihar
For the Respondents: Sushil Kumar Pandey

Transfer orders valid unless mala fide or violative of rules, but representations on personal grounds require reasoned speaking orders addressing specifics, balancing administrative exigency with employee morale.

Headnote:(A) Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 - Section 19 - Transfer Policy - Rotational transfer - Medical grounds - Representations - Impugned transfer order quashed for mechanical rejection of representations without specific reasons despite claims of administrative exigency - Individual difficulties must be considered sympathetically with reasoned speaking orders - Policy guidelines confer no vested right but require fair consideration balancing administrative needs and employee morale (Paras 11-14)

(B) Service Law - Transfer - Incident of service - No vested right to particular posting - Courts/Tribunals interfere only if mala fides, statutory violation or mechanical/non-speaking orders - Employee must join new posting unless stayed, but authorities must deal with representations individually and sensitively (Paras 8, 12-14)

Facts of the case:
Applicant, an Assistant Controller of Patents & Designs, challenged transfer from one office to another citing father's severe cardiac condition requiring tertiary care in current location, violation of rotational transfer policy (para 3.1 requiring descending order of tenure), and mechanical rejection of representations without reasons. Respondents defended on administrative exigency, citing precedents that transfers are prerogative unless mala fide or violative of rules.

Findings of Court:
Transfer and relieving orders quashed; respondents directed to reconsider representation afresh per policy, DOP&T guidelines and precedents, passing reasoned speaking order within 15 days; status quo maintained till then.

Issues: Whether transfer order violated policy; validity of mechanical rejection of representations on medical/compelling grounds without reasons; balance between administrative exigency and individual hardships.

Ratio Decidendi: While transfers are administrative prerogative for efficiency, rejecting representations mechanically without addressing specific grounds is arbitrary; authorities must issue reasoned orders considering individual difficulties to maintain morale alongside public interest (Paras 12-14).

Result: OA disposed at admission stage with directions.

Table of Content
1. applicant's challenge to transfer order on medical grounds (Para 1 , 2)
2. violation of rotational transfer policy and representations (Para 3 , 4)
3. transfers incident of service; limited judicial interference (Para 8)
4. mechanical rejection of representations without reasons (Para 10 , 11 , 12)
5. require reasoned orders considering individual difficulties (Para 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/1905, 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 order dated 17.02.2025 and 08.04.202, 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 location in accordance with para 3.4 of the revised transfer policy dated 04.07.2025, 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 08.12.2025 vide which the applicant has been transferred from New Delhi to Mumbai. Learned counsel for the applicant states that his father is a senior citizen and suffering from a severe and live straightening cardiac condition including coronary artery disease prior cardial infraction and post complication advice urgent cardiac processor requiring continuous treatment at a tertiary care facility in Delhi NCR.

3. Learned counsel for the applicant referred to the guidelines issued by DOP&T Transfer Policy issued by the respondents on 04.07.2025. 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 two representations dated 08.12.2025 followed by another representation dated 05.02.2026. The respondents, vide their common orders 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. Sushil Kumar Pandey 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

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2026 Supreme(Online)(CAT) 5120

CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNALChhabilendra Roul, Member (A), Rajveer Singh Verma, Member (J)Alok Mishra – AppellantVersusController General of Patents, Designs & Trade Marks (CGPDTM) – RespondentO.A. No. 1384/2026

Transfer orders valid unless mala fide or violative of rules, but representations on personal grounds require reasoned speaking orders addressing specifics, balancing administrative exigency with employee morale.

Cases Referred (2)

CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
Chhabilendra Roul, Member (A), Rajveer Singh Verma, Member (J)
Alok Mishra – Appellant
Versus
Controller General of Patents, Designs & Trade Marks (CGPDTM) – Respondent
O.A. No. 1384/2026