Pradeep Kumar Bhardwaj vs M/O FINANCE on 13 November 2026

ORDER

The applicant has filed the present Original Application under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, seeking quashing of the order dated 16.01.2026, communicated vide letter dated 20.01.2026, whereby his representation against the transfer order dated 24.10.2025, transferring him from the office of the PDA (DS), Delhi Cantt., to the office of the DA (DS), Jammu, was rejected. He has also sought a direction to the respondents to retain him at Delhi or, alternatively, to post him at any station in close proximity to Delhi on account of the medical condition of his wife.

2. The brief facts of the case are that the applicant is working as a Senior Audit Officer in the Defence Audit Department and has been serving at Delhi for more than 27 years. Vide transfer order dated 24.10.2025, he was transferred to Jammu. Aggrieved by the said transfer, he initially approached this Tribunal by filing O.A. No. 4706/2025. Vide order dated 09.12.2025, the Tribunal directed the respondents to consider and decide his representation within the stipulated period, while granting interim protection against implementation of the transfer order. Thereafter, the respondents passed a speaking order dated 16.01.2026, communicated on 20.01.2026, rejecting his request. The applicant has consequently filed the present Original Application challenging the said decision.

3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the transfer is arbitrary and has been effected without properly considering the applicant's family circumstances, particularly the medical condition ANJALI

ANJALI

of his wife, who is suffering from trigeminal neuralgia. It is contended that his wife is employed as a teacher in an MCD school at Delhi and her employment is non-transferable. The applicant further submits that he is her principal caregiver and that transferring him to Jammu would cause considerable hardship to his family.

4. Learned counsel for the applicant further submits that the respondents have failed to follow their own Transfer and Posting Policy dated 06.10.2025, particularly paragraphs 7 and 11 thereof. Paragraph 7 requires the Transfer and Posting Board to consider vacancies, station preferences, work requirements, seniority and other relevant factors, while following the guidelines for posting husband and wife at the same station, as far as practicable and feasible. Paragraph 11 provides for consideration of transfer requests on grounds of health, spouse posting and other compassionate circumstances through a prescribed procedure involving recommendations of the Head of Department and consideration by the competent authorities.

5. It is contended that the applicant's representation was not considered in accordance with the aforesaid provisions. Learned counsel submits that the speaking order dated 16.01.2026 does not disclose whether the applicant's request was forwarded to DGADS with the recommendation of the Head of Department or whether it was placed before the Transfer and Posting Board. The respondents have themselves stated in their counter affidavit that the applicant's ANJALI

ANJALI

representation would be considered at the next meeting of the Transfer and Posting Board. According to learned counsel, this clearly indicates that the representation had not been considered by the Board when the speaking order was passed.

6. Learned counsel for the applicant also draws attention to the availability of vacancies at Delhi. He submits that, as per the vacancy position furnished by the respondents, three posts of Senior Audit Officer are vacant out of the sanctioned strength of eight at Delhi Cantt. It is argued that the respondents could have considered accommodating the applicant against one of these vacancies, particularly in view of his wife's medical condition and employment at Delhi.

7. Learned counsel further submits that several officers having comparable or longer tenure at Delhi have been retained, whereas the applicant alone has been transferred. He also points out that although the applicant furnished five station preferences, including Delhi, Meerut, Chandigarh, Jammu and Prayagraj, the respondents selected Jammu without explaining why his higher preferences could not be accommodated.

8. In support of his submissions, learned counsel for the applicant relies upon the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Bank of India v. Jagjit Singh Mehta, (1992) 1 SCC 306, and Union of India v. S.L. Abbas, (1993) 4 SCC 357, as well as the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in Union of India & Ors. v. Yogender Mittal, W.P.(C) No. 6726/2015, decided on ANJALI

ANJALI

25.08.2015. He submits that although transfer is ordinarily an incidence of service, the same is open to judicial review where the authority fails to follow its own transfer policy or does not consider relevant circumstances.

9. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents opposes the Original Application and submits that the applicant has no vested right to remain posted at Delhi. It is contended that the applicant has remained at Delhi for more than 27 years and belongs to a cadre carrying al-India transfer liability. His transfer has been effected in the interest of administrative requirements and equitable rotation of personnel.

10. Learned counsel for the respondents further submits that the applicant himself furnished Jammu as one of his preferred stations and, therefore, cannot challenge his transfer to that station. It is also submitted that the vacancy position at Jammu is comparatively higher, with four vacancies against the sanctioned strength of nine posts, whereas Delhi has seven vacancies against the sanctioned strength of 72 posts.

11. With regard to the medical condition of the applicant's wife, learned counsel for the respondents submits that she underwent microvascular decompression surgery in January 2026 and obtained significant relief. It is contended that the medical records do not establish any requirement for constant caregiving assistance or the necessity of the applicant's continued presence at Delhi. ANJALI

ANJALI

12. Learnedcounsel for the respondents also relies upon the judgments in Union of India v. S.L. Abbas and Bank of India v. Jagjit Singh Mehta (supra) to submit that spouse-posting guidelines do not confer an enforceable right upon an employee to remain at a particular station. It is further submitted that the transfer has been made in accordance with the applicable policy dated 06.10.2025 and that no mala fides or illegality have been established.

13. Learned counsel for the respondents further submits that a large number of transfers have taken place in the department during the preceding three years and that, except for one officer having serious medical grounds, other Senior Audit Officers who had completed the prescribed tenure at Delhi have been transferred out.

14. During the pendency of the proceedings, this Tribunal, vide order dated 10.07.2026, directed the Commandant, Base Hospital, Delhi Cantonment, Army Hospital (Research & Referral), to constitute an appropriate Medical Board comprising specialists in the concerned fields to examine the medical condition of the applicant's wife and furnish its opinion regarding the nature of her ailment, whether the condition was incurable and whether she required the constant presence of a caregiver or attendant.

15. Pursuant to the aforesaid direction, the Medical Board examined Smt. Geeta Bhardwaj and furnished its opinion dated 12.08.2026, which was forwarded by the hospital vide communication dated 20.08.2026. The Board comprised a ANJALI

ANJALI

Consultant (Medicine), a Senior Advisor (Medicine and Neurology) and a Senior Advisor (Neurosurgery).

16. The Medical Board recorded that the applicant's wife was suffering from trigeminal neuralgia involving the right V2/V3 distribution. It noted that she had been experiencing severe facial pain since 2017 and that medication and repeated radiofrequency ablation had not provided satisfactory relief. She subsequently underwent microvascular decompression surgery in January 2026, following which significant relief was obtained. The Board also recorded residual numbness on the right side of her face.

17. In response to the specific questions referred to it, the Medical Board opined that the condition was presently well cured by surgery, with approximately 10% possibility of recurrence of pain in the future, as per medical literature. It further opined that no caregiver or attendant was presently required, as the applicant's wife had recovered well from the pain.

18. Learned counsel for the applicant filed objections to the Medical Board's opinion dated 29.10.2026. He contends that the opinion does not establish permanent cure, particularly when the Board itself has acknowledged the possibility of recurrence. He has also questioned the recurrence percentage, the period of examination after surgery, the composition of the Board and the absence of a specialist in pain medicine. He has further sought examination of applicant’s wife by an independent Review Medical Board. ANJALI

ANJALI

19. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that, even if the opinion of the Medical Board is accepted, the independent grounds concerning spouse posting, availability of vacancies at Delhi and the retention of similarly placed officers remain to be considered.

20. I have carefully considered the pleadings, the submissions advanced on behalf of the parties, the counter affidavit, the rejoinder, the medical opinion dated 12.08.2026 and the objections filed thereto.

21. The principal issue for consideration is whether the respondents, while rejecting the applicant's representation against transfer, followed the procedure prescribed under their own Transfer and Posting Policy dated 06.10.2025 and duly considered the relevant circumstances raised by the applicant.

22. At the outset, it is well settled that transfer is an incidence of service and an employee holding a transferable post cannot claim a right to remain posted at a particular station. The power to transfer ordinarily lies within the domain of the competent administrative authority. However, such power is required to be exercised fairly, reasonably and in accordance with the applicable rules, instructions and policy.

23. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Union of India v. S.L. Abbas (supra), has held that although transfer guidelines do not confer an enforceable right upon an employee, the competent authority is expected to keep such guidelines in mind while passing transfer ANJALI

ANJALI

orders and must consider an employee's representation having regard to administrative exigencies.

24. Similarly, in Bank of India v. Jagjit Singh Mehta (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court recognised that, as far as practicable and feasible, husband and wife who are both employed should be posted at the same station. However, such a guideline does not confer an absolute right to claim posting at a particular station, and the administrative requirements of the employer are also required to be considered.

25. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Punjab & Sind Bank v. Durgesh Kuwar (supra), has also reiterated the limited scope of judicial interference in transfer matters. The Tribunal would ordinarily not interfere unless the transfer is vitiated by mala fides, violation of applicable statutory provisions or other demonstrable illegality.

26. Applying the aforesaid principles to the present case, I am of the considered view that the applicant cannot claim an indefeasible right to remain at Delhi merely because his wife is employed there or because he has served at the said station for a considerable period. At the same time, the respondents are required to consider his spouse-related and medical representations in accordance with their own Transfer and Posting Policy.

27. In this regard, paragraph 7 of the Transfer and Posting Policy dated 06.10.2025 provides that the Transfer and Posting Board, while making transfers and postings, shall take into account the ANJALI

ANJALI

number of vacancies at different stations, the employee's choice of station, work requirements, seniority, station seniority and other relevant factors. It further provides that guidelines for posting husband and wife at the same station shall be followed as far as practicable and feasible.

28. Paragraph 11 of the same policy specifically deals with transfer requests on grounds of education, health, spouse posting and aged parents. It provides that such requests are to be sent to DGADS, New Delhi, with specific recommendations of the Head of Department. The recommendation or non-recommendation is required to be communicated within one month. Requests carrying positive recommendations are to be considered by the next Transfer and Posting Board, depending upon vacancies and administrative requirements. In case of non-recommendation, the employee is also provided an appellate remedy before the Transfer and Posting Board through its Member Convener, followed by a second and final appeal before the Dy. CAG (Defence).

29. The aforesaid provisions indicate that the respondents have themselves recognised health-related and spouse-related circumstances as relevant considerations in transfer matters and have prescribed a procedure for dealing with such requests. Therefore, while the applicant cannot insist upon a particular station as a matter of right, his representation is required to be considered in the manner prescribed by the policy. ANJALI

ANJALI

30. A perusal of the speaking order dated 16.01.2026 shows that the respondents have referred to the applicant's long tenure at Delhi, his station preferences, administrative requirements and the DoPT instructions concerning spouse posting. The order also refers to the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court governing transfer matters. However, it does not clearly indicate whether the procedure prescribed under paragraph 11 of the Transfer and Posting Policy was followed in considering the applicant's representation.

31. Significantly, the respondents, in their counter affidavit, have stated that the applicant's representation would also be considered in the next meeting of the Transfer and Posting Board. This statement assumes importance in view of the specific procedure prescribed under paragraph 11 of the policy. If the representation was already considered by the competent authority in accordance with the prescribed procedure, the respondents were expected to clarify the same and place the relevant material on record. On the other hand, if consideration by the Transfer and Posting Board was still pending, the respondents were required to explain the basis on which the representation had been finally rejected while simultaneously stating that it would be considered by the Board at its next meeting.

32. The counter affidavit does not clearly disclose whether the applicant's representation was forwarded to DGADS along with specific recommendations of the Head of Department, whether any recommendation or non-recommendation was communicated to the ANJALI

ANJALI

applicant, or whether the matter was placed before the Transfer and Posting Board. No clear particulars of such consideration have been brought on record before this Tribunal.

33. I am conscious that the policy does not confer an absolute right upon every employee to have his representation placed before the Transfer and Posting Board irrespective of the recommendation of the Head of Department. Nevertheless, the procedure prescribed under paragraph 11 is required to be followed, and the employee must be informed of the decision taken in accordance with that procedure, including the remedy available in the event of non- recommendation.

34. The respondents have also stated that the applicant's representation would be considered in the next meeting of the Transfer and Posting Board. In these circumstances, the respondents ought to have clarified whether such consideration was merely an additional administrative exercise or whether it formed part of the procedure required to be followed under paragraph 11. The absence of such clarification leaves the decision-making process incomplete on the material presently available before me.

35. I also find that the speaking order does not specifically deal with the feasibility of the applicant's spouse-posting request in the light of the vacancies available at Delhi and the other station preferences furnished by him. The respondents have stated that the applicant has completed more than 27 years at Delhi and that his transfer is necessary for equitable rotation of personnel. These are ANJALI

ANJALI

relevant administrative considerations. However, paragraph 7 of the policy requires the authority to consider the employee's preferences, vacancies and spouse-posting guidelines together with administrative requirements.

36. The fact that the applicant had included Jammu among his five station preferences is certainly a relevant circumstance. However, it cannot be treated as a waiver of his request for consideration on spouse or medical grounds. Similarly, the availability of vacancies at Delhi does not, by itself, create a right in the applicant to be accommodated there. Nevertheless, the vacancy position is one of the relevant factors which the competent authority is required to consider under paragraph 7 of the policy.

37. The respondents have stated that three posts out of the sanctioned strength of eight are vacant at Delhi Cantt., whereas four posts out of the sanctioned strength of nine are vacant at Jammu. These figures indicate that vacancies exist at both stations. It is for the competent administrative authority to assess the suitability of allocation against such vacancies, keeping in view the overall requirements of the department. I cannot, however, substitute my own assessment for that of the competent authority.

38. The applicant has also alleged discrimination on the ground that certain other officers with comparable or longer tenure at Delhi have been retained. The respondents have explained that transfers have been effected as part of an overall exercise of rotation and that the cases of individual officers depend upon their respective ANJALI

ANJALI

circumstances. Mere retention of some other officers does not, by itself, establish discrimination. Nevertheless, the applicant's specific contention, to the extent relevant and supported by the available records, may also be considered by the competent authority while undertaking a fresh examination.

39. I now turn to the medical ground raised by the applicant. The medical records establish that the applicant's wife suffered from trigeminal neuralgia and underwent microvascular decompression surgery in January 2026. The Medical Board constituted pursuant to the direction of this Tribunal has recorded significant improvement following surgery and has opined that no caregiver or attendant is presently required.

40. The applicant has questioned the opinion of the Medical Board on the ground that the condition has not been declared permanently cured and that there remains a possibility of recurrence. The Board has itself acknowledged a possibility of recurrence of pain in the future. Therefore, its opinion cannot be understood as a declaration that the ailment can never recur. The opinion is relevant for assessing the medical condition and the requirement of constant caregiving assistance at the time of examination.

41. The objections regarding the composition of the Medical Board and the absence of a specialist in pain medicine have also been considered. The Board included specialists in Medicine and Neurology and Neurosurgery. In the absence of any material demonstrating that the members lacked the requisite expertise or ANJALI

ANJALI

that their opinion was influenced by the respondents, I find no sufficient reason to discard the report merely on the grounds raised by the applicant.

42. The applicant's request for an independent Review Medical Board is also not supported by any specific material establishing that the earlier Board's examination was fundamentally defective or that its members were biased. Accordingly, I do not consider it necessary to direct constitution of another Medical Board at this stage.

43. The medical opinion, however, is not the sole basis for deciding the present dispute. The question whether the applicant's representation was considered in accordance with paragraphs 7 and 11 of the Transfer and Posting Policy is an independent issue. Even if the applicant's wife does not presently require a constant caregiver, the respondents remain under an obligation to consider the applicant's spouse-related and medical representation in accordance with the prescribed procedure.

44. The applicant has also relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in Union of India & Ors. v. Yogender Mittal, (supra). The said judgment reiterates that judicial interference may be warranted where the respondents have deviated from their own transfer policy. The principle laid down therein is relevant to the extent that the respondents are required to demonstrate compliance with the applicable policy. In the present case, the difficulty arises ANJALI

ANJALI

from the absence of sufficient material showing that the procedure prescribed under paragraph 11 was followed.

45. I have also considered the respondents' reliance upon the principle that an employee having all-India transfer liability cannot insist upon remaining at a particular station. There is no dispute with this proposition. However, the existence of transfer liability does not dispense with the requirement to consider an employee's representation in accordance with the applicable policy. Administrative discretion must be exercised within the framework of the policy formulated by the department itself.

46. Having considered the matter in its entirety, I am of the view that the applicant has not established any absolute right to remain posted at Delhi or to be posted at any particular station. The medical opinion also does not establish any present requirement for constant caregiving assistance. Nevertheless, the respondents have not satisfactorily demonstrated that the procedure prescribed under paragraph 11 of their Transfer and Posting Policy dated 06.10.2025 was followed while considering the applicant's representation.

47. In my considered view, the appropriate course would be to remit the matter to the competent authority for fresh consideration of the applicant's representation in accordance with paragraphs 7 and 11 of the Transfer and Posting Policy dated 06.10.2025. Such consideration shall be undertaken on the basis of the relevant records and shall take into account the applicant's spouse-related ANJALI

ANJALI

and medical circumstances, the available vacancies, his station preferences and the administrative requirements of the department.

48. It is clarified that I am not expressing any opinion on the station at which the applicant should ultimately be posted. The question whether the applicant can be accommodated at Delhi or at any other station shall remain within the domain of the competent administrative authority, subject to due consideration of the relevant factors and the applicable policy.

49. The competent authority shall also verify whether the applicant's representation was forwarded to DGADS with the specific recommendation or non-recommendation of the Head of Department, as contemplated under paragraph 11. If the prescribed procedure has not been completed, the same shall be undertaken in accordance with the policy. The applicant shall also be informed of the decision and the remedy available to him under the said provision, wherever applicable.

50. In view of the above, the Original Application is partly allowed. The impugned order dated 16.01.2026 is set aside, and the matter is remitted to the competent authority for fresh consideration of the applicant's representation in accordance with paragraphs 7 and 11 of the Transfer and Posting Policy dated 06.10.2025, keeping in view the observations made herein. The competent authority shall pass a reasoned and speaking order within three weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. The applicant's inclusion of Jammu among his station preferences shall not be ANJALI

ANJALI

treated as a waiver of his request on spouse or medical grounds. No direction is, however, issued for his retention at Delhi or posting at any particular station.

51. The interim protection granted earlier shall continue until the fresh decision is communicated to the applicant.

52. Pending MA(s), if any, stand disposed of accordingly. There shall be no order as to costs.

(B. ANAND) MEMBER (A)

/anjali/ ANJALI

ANJALI