Employees challenging transfer orders are entitled to fair consideration of their representations, and the administration is legally obligated to pass reasoned and speaking orders when rejecting such requests, particularly when personal difficulties are cited.

Ms. Harvinder Kaur Oberoi, Member (J)

MA No. 2129/2026

For the reasons stated therein, the MA seeking exemption from filing translated copies of Hindi and dim documents is allowed, subject to just exceptions.

OA No. 1595/2026

2. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has challenged the transfer order dated 09.01.2026, whereby the applicant has been transferred from Delhi to Kolkata. It is further submitted that, pursuant to the said transfer order, all employees were granted an opportunity to submit their representations.

3. It is further submitted that all such representations were rejected by orders dated 17.02.2026 and 08.04.2026 in a mechanical and non-speaking manner. Subsequently, the applicant was relieved on 13.04.2026.

4. Learned counsel submits that the impugned transfer order is illegal, arbitrary, and violative of the transfer policy. It is argued that the respondents failed to consider the ground realities, particularly when the office functions largely on an online basis and physical relocation is not essential.

5. It is further contended that the “first-in-first-out” principle has been violated and that the respondents have acted in a pick-and-choose manner.

6. On personal grounds, it is submitted that the applicant is residing with a dependent parent and has raised specific personal difficulties in the representation. It is also submitted that certain relevant aspects, including preference for an alternative place of posting, have not been duly considered by the respondents.

7. Learned counsel submits that in the representation, the applicant had specifically requested that instead of being transferred to Kolkata, he/she may be considered for posting at Ahmedabad. However, the said request has not been considered, and the rejection order is cryptic and non-speaking.

8. It is also argued that the respondents have failed to consider applicable DoPT guidelines and the specific grounds raised in the representation dated 24.02.2026 and 16.01.2026.

9. Learned counsel further relies upon judgments of the Hon’ble High Court and submits that in similar matters, including OA No. 1383/2026, this Tribunal has already quashed the transfer and relieving orders and directed reconsideration of representations.

10. It is submitted that the applicant would be satisfied if similar relief is granted in the present case.

11. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents submits that the impugned transfer has been effected in public interest and on account of administrative exigencies. It is contended that the applicant holds a transferable post with all-India liability, and the respondents are well within their authority to effect transfers in accordance with the applicable policy.

12. Learned counsel for the respondents, however, fairly submits that in case the applicant submits a fresh representation, including the request for posting at Ahmedabad, the same shall be duly considered in accordance with the applicable rules and policy.

13. We have considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record. We note that the representations of the applicant have been rejected by non-speaking orders. We also note that in a similar matter, being OA No. 1383/2026, relief has already been granted. There is no reason to take a divergent view in the present case.

14. Accordingly, the present Original Applicatio