Manoj Kumar vs Director General, Employees’ State Insurance Corporation, Panchdeep Bhawan, Cig Marg, New Delhi -110001 & Ors

Ajay Pratap Singh, Member (J)

Heard the parties.

By way of the present OA, the applicant has challenged the transfer Order No.54/2026 dated 10.04.2026 (Annexure A-1) whereby he has been transferred from the post of RO- Faridabad, Haryana to SRO, Durgapur, mentioned at serial no.302 in the transfer order, and also seeking direction to the respondents to consider his representation dated 11.04.2026 (Annexure A-6) and to allow him to continue to work at SRO-Noida, UP and further direction to the respondents to review the Transfer Policy dated 19.12.2024 being arbitrary and has no rational nexus with the objective sought to be achieved.

Learned counsel for the applicant vehemently contended and can be summarized as under-

(i) Applicant joined the respondents-ESIC in the year 2011 as Lower Division Clerk and got promoted as Upper Division Clerk in the year 2011 itself and thereafter as Assistant in the year 2015. The applicant was got further promoted as as Social Security Officer [SSO] in the year 2021 and was posted at the ESIC Headquarters till the year 2024.

(ii) On 11.03.2024, the applicant was ordered to be transferred from ESIC Hqrs. to Sub-Regional Office, Faridabad, Haryana. However, prior to passing of this order, the applicant was made to exercise his options with reference to choice stations where he would have preferred to get transferred. Accordingly the applicant exercised his options and gave Delhi-NCR as his first preferred station and the competent authority after considering his representation and as per recommendation of the Transfer Committee, he was transferred to SRO, Faridabad, Haryana on 11.03.2024.

(iii) The applicant was posted at Branch Office, NIT-5, Faridabad as a Branch Manager/SSO which was further about 6 kms away from the existing office which is located at a distance of about 40 kms from the place of residence of the applicant but he always abided by the orders of the competent authority.

(iv) It is further stated that it was surprising to be informed that the competent authority has again passed fresh orders dated 10.04.2026 (Annexure A-1) transferring him from RO, Faridabad, Haryana to SRO, Durgapur - about 1300 kms away from the current place of posting. The said order is mechanical and arbitrary as the respondents have failed to appreciate that the applicant was retained at Delhi-NCR on spouse grounds and further that the applicant has only spent about 02 years at the current place of posting/Accounting unit causing grave prejudice to the applicant. Furthermore, the said orders, unlike order dated 11.03.2024 do not provide for a grievance redressal mechanism through which the applicant can agitate the said order.

(v) Aggrieved, the applicant preferred a representation to the respondents enumerating the grounds on which he should be considered for retention at Delhi-NCR region only as the rules provide for the applicant to be posted at a location where his spouse is employed and children are studying.

(vi) It is averred that DoPT instructions dated 30.09.2009 clearly provide for posting of husband and wife at the same station, to say, that if one spouse is employed under Central Government and the other in State Government, in that event the competent authority is competent to post the officer to the station or in that station to the State where the other spouse is posted. The respondents have not considered the request of the applicant for choice station whereas the same request made by others has been acceded to whose names are mentioned in the impugned transfer order at serial nos. 83, 84, 90, 92, 95, 100, 141 to 143, 149, 150, 154, 186, 250, 260, 305, 307, 315, 325, 330 and 332. Hence, the impugned transfer Order dated 10.04.2026 qua the applicant is in flagrant violation of DoPT instructions dated 30.09.2009, as such, the impugned transfer Order qua the applicant is not sustainable and deserves to be quashed.

Issue notice to respondents. Dr. Divya Swamy, Standing Counsel with Ms. Nidhi Kumar, Advocate, appears on behalf of both the respondents and accepts notice.

Learned counsel for the respondents sounding a contra note submitted that the Apex Court in Union of India vs. S.L. Abbas, AIR 1993 SC 2444 and Hon'ble High Court in Amarjeet Singh Dagar, 2022 SCC OnLine Del.694, has held that the guidelines do not confer upon a government employee an enforceable right unless an order of transfer is violative of statutory mandatory provisions or malafide in nature, the courts should not interfere with it.

Learned counsel for the applicant also contended that Hon'ble Supreme in case of Union of India vs. S.L. Abbas (supra). Their Lordships further observed that while ordering an order of transfer, the authority must keep in mind the guidelines issued by the Government. This Tribunal, in a similar case titled as R.K. Sharma vs. Union of India & Ors. (supra), disposed of the OA with direction to the respondents to pass a fresh order. Applicant has filed representation dated 11.04.2026 (Annexure A-6) against the impugned Order on the ground that his wife is working in GNCTD in non-transferable post and vacancies are available and hence as per DoPT OM dated 14.10.2009, 30.09.2009 on spouse grounds, ought to be allowed to continue at present place of posting.

Learned counsel for the applicant, after arguing at substantial length, submits that the applicant would be satisfied if respondents are directed to consider applicant's pending representation dated 11.04.2026 (Annexure A-6) in light of the DoP&T instructions dated 30.09.2009.

The learned counsel for the respondents, after arguing for some time, fairly submits that the pending representation dated 11.04.2026 (Annexure A-6) shall be considered sympathetically as her wife's job is non-transferable and children are studying in Delhi.

Heard. We have considered the matter. In view of above submissions and considering the fact of the matter that the impugned transfer Order dated 10.04.2026 qua the applicant is assailed on the violation of Clause 7.4 and 12.6 of the Transfer Policy dated 19.12.2024 and OM dated 30.09.2009, 03.04.1986, 23.08.2004 and personal hardships. The dependent daughter of the applicant is studying in class 10th in the academic year 2026-2027. Applicant has not been relieved till date and in similar OA No.1255/2026 Sugan Lal Meena vs. ESIC, OA No.1352/2026-Brijesh vs. ESIC, in OA No.1279/2026 in Shyam Sunder Kaushik Vs. ESIC, the respondents have been directed to dispose of representations and till then allowed to continue.

The Supreme Court recently in the case of Namrata Verma Vs. State of U.P. and others by order dated 06.09.2021 passed in SLP (Civil) No.36717/2017 has held that"itis not for the employee to insist to transfer him/her and/or not to transfer him/her at a particular place. It is for the employer to transfer an employee considering the requirement. Until and unless the transfer is vitiated by mala fide or is made in violation of any statutory provisions, the Court cannot interfere with the order of transfer. The Hon'ble Supreme Court, while dealing with the scope of judicial review in the matter of transfer, held that transfer is an incidence of service and normally should not be interfered with by the Court. If any administrative guidelines recalling transfer of an employee are violated, at best the same confers the right on the employee to approach the higher authorities for redressal of his grievance. [See: Union of India and Others v.S.L. Abbas, (1993) 4 SCC 357, State Bank of India v. Anjan Sanyal and others, (2001) 5 SCC 508, Public Services Tribunal Bar Association v. State of U.P. and another, (2003) 4 SCC 104, State of U.P. and Others v. Gobardhan Lal, (2004) 1 SCC 402, R.S. Chaudhary and Others v. State of M.P. and Others, ILR (2007) MP 1329, Government of Andhra Pradesh v. G.Venkata 4 WP. No. 4738/2017 (Braj Kishore Paliwal Vs. State of M.P. and others) Ratnam, (2008) 9 SCC 345 and State of Haryana and Others v. Kashmir Singh and Another, (2010) 13 SCC 306].

In case of Rajendra Roy vs. Union of India (1993) 1 SCC 148. Their Lordships observed that "in transfer matters personal difficulties are matters for consideration of the department and if such representation is made too about personal hardships, being suffered by the applicant in view of impugned Order, it is reasonable expected that the same should be considered by the department as expeditiously as practicable".

In the case of Director of School Education Vs. Karuppa Thevan, (1994) Supp.2 SCC 666, Their Lordships held that "except in case of pressing urgency transfer in the midst of academic year disturbing the studies of children should be avoided".

[Emphasis supplied]

The Division Bench of Hon'ble High Court of Madhya Pradesh in case of R.S. Chaudhary Vs. State of M.P. & Ors, reported in ILR (2007) MP 1329, held after considering catena of judgments by Hon'ble Supreme Court that in case an order of transfer is assailed on the ground that there has been violation of the Transfer Policy, the proper remedy is to approach the authorities by pointing out the violation and it is expected of the authorities to deal with the same keeping in mind the policy guidelines with utmost objectivity.

For all the reasons stated hereinabove, this OA is disposed of at admission stage itself with the following directions to the respondents -

(i) To take decision on pending representation dated 11.04.2026 (Annexure A-6) by considering each contention of the applicant by passing a reasoned and speaking order as expeditiously as practicable.

(ii) The transfer Order dated 10.04.2026 qua the applicant shall not be implemented by the respondents and the applicant shall be allowed to continue at the original place of posting till his pending representation dated 11.04.2026 is decided.

(iii) The decision on applicant's representation shall be communicated to the applicant and if the decision does not come in his favour, in that eventuality, respondents are further directed not to implement the impugned Order qua the applicant for next fifteen days to be counted from the date of communication of the decision to the applicant.

There shall be no order as to costs.

Pending Miscellaneous Application(s), if any, also stands closed.