Transfer Policy | Protected Status for Government Employees with Children in Class 10/12 : CAT Delhi Directs Reconsideration

The Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, Delhi, has underscored the importance of protected employee status under government transfer guidelines, particularly for employees with children in critical academic years. The judgment directs reconsideration of a transfer order where the employee's son was in Class XII, reinforcing the principle that administrative actions must account for personal hardships and educational continuity.

Background & Facts

The Dispute

The applicant, Sanjay Kumar Srivastava, an Executive Engineer (Civil) in the Central Public Works Department (CPWD), challenged his transfer order dated 01.10.2025 from Delhi to Kochi HQ, Chennai. The applicant contended that the transfer was arbitrary, discriminatory, and violated the Transfer Guidelines issued by the Ministry of Housing and Urban Affairs, particularly the provisions relating to protected employees.

Key Facts

• The applicant joined service as a Junior Engineer on 07.12.1992 and was promoted to Assistant Engineer and subsequently to Executive Engineer on an ad hoc basis.
• He was transferred from Lucknow to Delhi and joined on 29.04.2022.
• The impugned transfer order dated 01.10.2025 directed his posting to Chennai.
• The applicant’s wife suffers from Pemphigus Vulgaris and is undergoing treatment at AIIMS, Delhi.
• The applicant’s son was studying in Class XI at the time of the transfer order and was registered with CBSE for the Class XII Board Examination scheduled for February-March 2027, as per CBSE’s communication dated 25.09.2025.
• The applicant submitted representations dated 24.10.2025 and 17.03.2026, requesting retention or transfer back to Delhi without claiming TA/DA or joining time, citing his son’s academic continuity.

Procedural History

• 16.04.2025: The applicant was promoted to Executive Engineer (ad hoc) pursuant to CAT’s order in OA No. 536/2025 and CP No. 399/2025.
• 01.10.2025: Impugned transfer order issued.
• 24.10.2025: Applicant filed a representation against the transfer order.
• 19.02.2026: CAT disposed of OA No. 647/2026, directing the respondents to consider the applicant’s representations.
• 17.03.2026: Personal hearing granted; applicant submitted further representation.
• 23.04.2026: Respondents rejected the applicant’s representations.
• 28.04.2026: Fresh Transfer Guidelines issued, rendering the applicant ineligible to apply for transfer back to Delhi or nearby stations.
• 08.05.2026: Notice issued to respondents; no reply filed.
• 22.05.2026: Present order passed by CAT.

Relief Sought

The applicant sought:

1. Quashing of the transfer order dated 01.10.2025 and subsequent order dated 23.04.2026.
2. Quashing of the OM dated 28.04.2026 to the extent it rendered him ineligible for transfer.
3. Direction to the respondents to post him back to Delhi or a nearby station.
4. Costs in his favor.

The Legal Issue

The central question was whether the Transfer Guidelines, particularly the provisions relating to protected employees, mandate sympathetic consideration of an employee’s request for transfer when their child is in Class X or XII, and whether the respondents arbitrarily rejected such a request despite the applicant’s compliance with the transfer order.

Arguments Presented

For the Applicant

1. The impugned transfer order was issued in violation of the Transfer Guidelines, specifically the provisions for protected employees whose children are in Class X or XII.
2. The applicant’s son was in Class XI at the time of the transfer order and was registered for the Class XII Board Examination, making the applicant a protected employee under the policy.
3. The transfer would prejudice the academic continuity of the applicant’s son, as registration for the Class XII Board Examination is completed during Class XI under the New Education Policy.
4. The prescribed tenure of two years for intra-regional transfers should be relaxed or curtailed in light of the applicant’s peculiar circumstances.
5. The respondents’ actions were arbitrary and discriminatory, as they failed to consider the applicant’s representations sympathetically.

For the Respondents

The respondents did not file a reply despite being granted time, leaving their arguments unstated in the judgment.

The Court's Analysis

The Tribunal examined the Transfer Guidelines, particularly Clause ix, which defines protected employees as those:

• Due for retirement within 12 months of the cutoff date.
• Having children studying in Class 10th or 12th during the year of consideration.
• Suffering from self-disability or acting as a caregiver to a dependent.

The Tribunal noted that the applicant’s son was in Class XII and would appear for the Board Examination in February-March 2027, a fact not disputed by the respondents. The Tribunal emphasized that the educational interests of the child must be prioritized, as the transfer would disrupt his academic continuity.

"It is not in dispute that the transfer policy provides for a special consideration in cases where the children of the employees are in senior classes like 10th and 12th standard. Applicant's son is in class 12th and shall be appearing in board exam in Feb-March 2027 is also not disputed. The applicant has joined at Chennai in deference to the transfer order and as such his request for transfer to Delhi/nearby can be considered since he has joined at the transferred place."

The Tribunal further observed that the applicant had complied with the transfer order by joining his posting in Chennai, and his request for transfer back to Delhi or a nearby station was legally tenable under the policy. The respondents’ rejection of the applicant’s representations was held to be arbitrary, as it failed to account for the protected status of the applicant.

The Verdict

The Tribunal disposed of the Original Application with the following directions:

1. The respondents were directed to reconsider the applicant’s representation for relaxation or curtailment of the prescribed tenure at his current posting.
2. The applicant was permitted to apply for transfer in the forthcoming transfer window for posting at Delhi, Delhi-NCR, or any nearby station, keeping in view the educational interests of his son.
3. The respondents were to decide the matter sympathetically and in accordance with the Transfer Guidelines.
4. The OA was disposed of without costs.

What This Means For Similar Cases

Protected Employee Status Must Be Honored

The judgment reinforces that government transfer policies, particularly those relating to protected employees, must be strictly adhered to. Employees with children in Class X or XII are entitled to sympathetic consideration, and arbitrary rejection of their representations may be challenged before the Tribunal.

• Practitioners should emphasize the protected status of employees under Clause ix of the Transfer Guidelines when representing clients with similar hardships.
• Documentary evidence (e.g., school records, medical certificates) should be submitted to establish the protected status and the hardship caused by the transfer.

Administrative Discretion Is Not Absolute

The judgment highlights that administrative discretion in transfer matters is not unfettered. The respondents’ failure to consider the applicant’s representations sympathetically was held to be arbitrary, setting a precedent that personal hardships must be factored into administrative decisions.

• Employees can challenge transfer orders if they are issued without regard to protected status or peculiar circumstances.
• Tribunals may intervene to direct reconsideration of representations if the administrative authority acts mechanically or arbitrarily.

Educational Continuity Is a Valid Ground for Relief

The Tribunal recognized that disruption of academic continuity for children in Class X or XII constitutes a valid ground for seeking relief from transfer orders. This principle may be extended to other cases involving educational or medical hardships.

• Employees should highlight specific disruptions (e.g., change of school, medical treatment) caused by transfers.
• Advocates should argue for relaxation of tenure requirements where the employee’s circumstances warrant exceptional consideration.