Uma Prasad 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 documents placed on record, are that the applicant was appointed as a Lower Division Clerk in the year 1994 and was subsequently promoted as Upper Division Clerk and thereafter as Assistant. She was promoted to the post of Social Security Officer vide Office Order dated 29.12.2017 and joined the said post in January, 2018. Vide Office Order No. 45 of 2024 dated 11.03.2024, she was transferred from ESIC Headquarters, Delhi to SRO Thane, 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 reasoned and speaking orders. Pursuant thereto, the applicant submitted her representation dated 30.09.2024, raising, inter alia, her family circumstances as a widow and single parent of an unmarried daughter, as well as her medical conditions including anxiety disorder, insomnia, depression and arthritis in both knees requiring surgery, which was being undertaken at ESIC Hospital. The applicant also submitted her medical records, including previous treatment records. The impugned speaking order dated 27.08.2026 rejected her representation, observing that the single-parent ground was not considered as the child was not a minor and that she 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). Thereafter, vide relieving order No. 232/2026 dated 01.09.2026, she 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 a speaking order, the consideration of the applicant’s representation has remained incomplete and mechanical. The applicant had specifically raised her medical condition and her family circumstances as a widow and single parent. It is submitted that the medical records submitted by the applicant, including her treatment records from ESIC Hospital, were not properly placed before or considered by the competent medical authority.

Learned counsel further submits that the applicant’s medical conditions, including arthritis in both knees and other ailments, required proper consideration. It is submitted that the medical authority considered the cases on the basis of the records placed before it, whereas the applicant’s latest medical records were not duly placed before the competent authority. It is further submitted that the applicant is a widow and a single parent having an unmarried daughter and that her family circumstances required her to remain in Delhi. These circumstances, according to learned counsel, were not properly considered merely because the daughter was not a minor.

Learned counsel therefore submits that the impugned speaking order dated 27.08.2026 suffers from non-application of mind and does not constitute complete consideration of the applicant’s representation. Consequently, the relieving order dated 01.09.2026, being consequential thereto, 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 recommendation of the Transfer Committee. It is submitted that the post of Social Security Officer is transferable anywhere in India. It is further submitted that the applicant’s representation was duly considered and the impugned speaking order was passed in accordance with the applicable transfer policy.

Learned counsel for the respondents relies upon the transfer policy and submits that compassionate grounds are subject to administrative feasibility and do not confer an absolute right upon an employee to remain posted at a particular station. It is also submitted that the policy provides for 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 grounds, reliance is placed upon the recommendation of the competent medical authority and the applicable medical guidelines. It is thus submitted that no interference is warranted.

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) Chandigarh; (iii) Jaipur; (iv) Dehradun; and (v) Lucknow. Despite the same, she was posted to SRO Thane, 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 as per her medical records, she is required to undergo knee replacement surgery. Therefore, 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 having an adult unmarried daughter. Merely observing that the daughter was not a minor does not, by itself, amount to consideration of the circumstances placed before the respondents. The impugned order, therefore, does not demonstrate complete consideration of the applicant’s representation.

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 01.09.2026 is also quashed and set aside. The matter is remanded to the Competent Authority 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 any other relevant ground raised by her.

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. While reconsidering the matter, the Competent Authority may also consider the feasibility of retaining/posting the applicant at her preferred place, subject to administrative requirements, availability of vacancy and the applicable transfer policy.

We have expressed no opinion on the ultimate entitlement of the applicant to any particular place of posting. The Competent Authority shall take an independent decision after considering all relevant material and circumstances.

The Original Application stands disposed of in the above terms. Pending M.A., if any, also stands disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.