Ms. Shallu Toteja vs Union Of India & Ors.

The present Original Application has been filed by the applicant seeking the following reliefs:

Brief facts of the case, as borne out from the pleadings and the documents placed on record, are that the applicant was appointed as a Lower Division Clerk in the year 1993 and was subsequently promoted as Upper Division Clerk and thereafter as Assistant. She was promoted to the post of Social Security Officer (SSO) vide Office Order dated 05.05.2021. Subsequently, vide Office Order No. 45 of 2024 dated 11.03.2024, she was transferred from Directorate (Medical), Delhi to SRO Marol, Maharashtra. The applicant challenged the transfer along with other similarly placed officers in OA No. 2491/2024. Vide order dated 24.09.2024, the Tribunal directed the respondents to consider the individual representations of the applicants and pass a reasoned and speaking order in each case, after giving an opportunity to submit a detailed representation. Pursuant thereto, the applicant submitted her representation dated 30.09.2024, raising, inter alia, her status as a widow and single parent of an unmarried daughter, as also her medical condition, particularly Obstructive Sleep Apnea (OSA), for which she had been using a CPAP machine. While the medical aspect was under consideration, the applicant was directed to submit recent medical records and undergo medical examination. Pursuant thereto, she was examined at ESIC Model Hospital, Basaidarapur, on 25.01.2025, where she was diagnosed with severe OSA and was advised further investigations. Thereafter, the respondents issued the impugned speaking order dated 27.08.2026 rejecting the applicant’s representation. The order recorded, inter alia, that the grievance on the single-parent ground was not considered as the child was not a minor and that the applicant was not considered for exemption on medical grounds in accordance with Annexure-I of the CHS Office Memorandum dated 10.12.2021 and the recommendation of the Transfer Committee (AGT-24). Subsequently, vide relieving order No. 227/2026 dated 31.08.2026, the applicant was relieved from her existing place of posting and directed to report at the transferred place.

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that although the respondents have passed the speaking order, the consideration of the applicant’s case has remained incomplete and mechanical. It is submitted that the applicant had specifically raised two distinct and substantial grounds, namely, her medical condition and her family circumstances Central Administrative Tribunal^{as a single parent. However, the impugned order does not} demonstrate any meaningful consideration of either of these aspects.

Learned counsel submits that the applicant had been suffering from severe OSA and, pursuant to the directions of the respondents themselves, had undergone fresh medical examination in January 2025. The medical records, however, were not properly placed before or considered by the competent medical authority. In the medical recommendation, the applicant’s case was recorded on the basis of old medical records with the observation that the current status was not known, although the applicant had subsequently undergone medical examination pursuant to the directions of the respondents. It is further submitted that the applicant is a widow and a single parent having an unmarried daughter and an unemployed son. The applicant had specifically explained that she was required to remain in Delhi in view of her family responsibilities. These circumstances, according to learned counsel, were required to be considered independently and not rejected merely on the ground that the daughter was not a minor.

Learned counsel therefore submits that the impugned Central Administrative Tribunal^{speaking order dated 27.08.2026 suffers from non-application} of mind and does not constitute a complete consideration of the applicant’s representation. Consequently, the relieving order dated 31.08.2026, which is consequential to the impugned speaking order, is also liable to be set aside.

Learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, submits that the transfer of the applicant was made pursuant to the Annual General Transfer and on the recommendations of the Transfer Committee. It is submitted that the post of Social Security Officer is transferable anywhere in India and that the applicant had already completed the maximum permissible tenure at Delhi-NCR under the applicable transfer policy. Learned counsel has also pointed out that the Transfer Committee had considered the transfer requests in accordance with administrative requirements and feasibility. It is further submitted that the applicant’s online grievance and subsequent representation were duly considered by the respondents.

The respondents rely upon the transfer policy, according to which compassionate grounds are subject to administrative feasibility and do not confer an absolute right upon an employee to remain posted at a particular station. The Central Administrative Tribunal^{respondents also submit that the transfer was made in public} interest and in accordance with the applicable policy. It is also contended that the policy provided a one-time exemption in the case of a single parent having a child below 18 years of age and that the applicant’s daughter did not fall within that category. As regards the medical ground, the respondents rely upon the recommendation of the competent committee and the applicable medical guidelines. It is thus submitted that there is no infirmity in the impugned order warranting interference by this Tribunal.

We have considered the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties and have perused the pleadings and documents placed on record.

The issue before us is not whether the applicant has an absolute right to a particular place of posting. However, once her individual grievances were directed to be considered, such consideration was required to be meaningful and complete. The applicant had given the following choices of posting in order of preference: (i) Delhi-NCR; (ii) Karnal; (iii) Chandigarh; (iv) Ludhiana; and (v) Dehradun. Despite the same, she was posted to SRO Marol, Maharashtra, which was not amongst her preferred stations. The applicant had also raised her medical condition and family circumstances as a widow and single parent. Though she had not submitted all her medical records, this aspect cannot be viewed in isolation. She was under treatment at ESIC Hospital, and the respondents themselves, vide letter dated 24.01.2025, directed her to undergo fresh medical examination and submit medical documents. Pursuant thereto, she was examined at ESIC Model Hospital, Basaidarapur on 25.01.2025, where she was diagnosed with severe OSA. The relevant medical history and records were thus available within the ESIC system itself.

We also find that the applicant’s family circumstances required proper consideration. The applicant is a widow and a single parent with an adult unmarried daughter of marriageable age, whose care and marriage-related responsibilities were specifically pleaded by her. Merely observing that the daughter was not a minor does not, in our view, amount to consideration of the circumstances placed before the respondents. The impugned order also does not demonstrate due consideration of the subsequent medical condition.

In view of the above, we find that the applicant’s case was not considered in its proper perspective. Accordingly, the speaking order dated 27.08.2026 is quashed and set aside. Consequently, the relieving order dated 31.08.2026 is also quashed and set aside. The matter is remanded to the competent authority amongst the respondents for fresh consideration of the applicant’s case, particularly her medical condition and available medical records, her family circumstances as a widow and single parent with an adult unmarried daughter, and her preferred stations. The competent authority may also consider the feasibility of posting her at any of her preferred stations, including Delhi-NCR, subject to administrative requirements, availability of vacancy and applicable policy.

The competent authority shall complete the aforesaid exercise and pass a fresh, reasoned and speaking order within three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. Any other relevant aspect raised by the applicant in her representation shall also be duly considered.

We have expressed no opinion on the applicant’s ultimate entitlement to any particular place of posting. The Original Application stands disposed of in the above terms. Pending MA, if any, also stands disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.