Central Administrative Tribunal
DR DEEPIKA G vs EMPLOYEES STATE INSURANCE CORPORATION (ESIC) on 9 October 2026
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL BANGALORE
Order Sheet
Item no.: 6
O.A./383/2026 (BANGALORE)
[ TRANSFER ]
Court No.: 2
No of Adjournment: 1
Order Dated: 09/10/2026
DR DEEPIKA G
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 essentially reiterated the same points which she mentioned in the Order Sheet dated 01.10.2026, 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-7 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 Rajajinagar, only on May 2023.
(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(4) It is also pointed out that though the applicant was put under suspension, suspension has been revoked on 15.09.2026, however, till date no disciplinary proceedings have been initiated.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 on the last occasion, was given one week time to file a short reply regarding the issue of Interim Relief. Today once again, the learned counsel for the respondents requests for some more time. He has brought to my attention that a related OA No 16/2026 is also pending wherein the orders of suspension was challenged and also in other OA the shift of headquarters was also challenged. It is seen that in OA No 16/2026, this Bench had declined the interim relief on the issue of change of headquarters. On appeal, the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka vide Writ Petition No 515/2026 dated 19.01.2026 had granted the relief. The essence of the matter in all these OAs is the possibility of the applicant and other people interfering with the records and that is why it appears that earlier orders were issued by the respondents for change of headquarters and again on revocation of suspension, they have been transferred out. The counsel for the respondents submits that in the other OA No 16/2026 they have filed the reply. However, it is also a fact that despite lapse of nine months, no disciplinary proceedings have been initiated in the matter. It is felt that one final opportunity will be given in the interest of justice to the learned counsel for the respondents to file a short reply. List the case on 13.10.2026 for consideration of interim relief.
SANTOSH MEHRA Member (A)
Komal Rani ( steno 'c' )