Central Administrative Tribunal
DR PADMAVATHY M vs EMPLOYEES STATE INSURANCE CORPORATION (ESIC) on 13 October 2026
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL BANGALORE
Order Sheet
Item no.: 10
O.A./384/2026 (BANGALORE)
[ TRANSFER ]
Court No.: 2
No of Adjournment: 2
Order Dated: 13/10/2026
DR PADMAVATHY M
Vs
EMPLOYEES STATE INSURANCE CORPORATION (ESIC)
For Applicant(s) Advocate : Smt. Akkamahadevi Hiremath For Respondent(s) Advocate : Shri N. Amaresh Order of The Tribunal Smt. Akkamahadevi Hiremath appears on behalf of the applicant.
Shri N. Amaresh appears on behalf of the respondents.
The learned counsel for the applicant has reiterated the same points for the third time today which are as follows:
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
(1) As per the Transfer Policy cited at Annexure A-6 the timeline for the Annual General Transfers is between November 30 and June 30. However, in violation of this Timeline the order for transfer has been issued on 25.09.2026 which is in the middle of the academic year.
(2) The minimum tenure prescribed is three years which can go upto ten years. The applicant has not completed even the minimum tenure as he was posted to the present place of posting, which is ESIC Peenya, only on 01.04.2025.
(3) The Transfer Order is a very bald one and does not mention any ground for transferring out the applicant.
(4) It is also pointed out that though the applicant was put under suspension, suspension has been revoked on 15.09.2026, however, till date no disciplinary proceedings have been initiated.
(5) The applicant has multiple health problems and therefore her hasty and vindictive displacement can have deleterious consequences on her health and family. The learned counsel for the respondents as per his assurance was given opportunity on 01.10.2026 and again on 09.10.2026 to file a reply atleast with respect to the Interim Relief. However, the same has not been carried out. In view of the above, it is seen that the Balance of Convience lies on the side of the applicant. The learned counsel for the applicant in Para 9 of the OA had requested for the following Interim Relief: "The Applicant prays that this Hon'ble Tribunal to be pleased to grant an interim order, staying, the operation and implementation of Office Order 120 of 2026 (Ann A1), dated 25-09-2026 and bearing No. A-22013/15/2023-MED-VI, passed by the Respondent No 1 herein and transferring the Applicant (shown at Sl No 4) from Bengaluru to Gulbarga, and the Relieving Order (Ann A2), Dated 29-09-2026 in No 49/?/19/11/101883/Estt and issued by the 2nd respondent, and all proceedings pursuant thereto and direct the Respondents 1, 2 and 3 to allow the applicant to discharge her duties as ESI Hospital, Peenya, Bengaluru pending disposal of OA." In view of the above, as requested, Interim Relief is granted till the next date of hearing. List the case on 30.10.2026.
SANTOSH MEHRA Member (A)
Komal Rani ( steno 'c' )