IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA
M.S. KARNIK, VALMIKI MENEZES, JJ.
Devyani C. Naik – Appellant
Versus
State of Goa – Respondent
Writ Petition No. 382 of 2024
Decided on : 13-08-2024
Disability - Transfer - Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 - Sections 2(e), 2(c), 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 57(1) - The court emphasized the need for reasonable accommodation for caregivers of persons with disabilities, interpreting the provisions to prioritize the welfare of the disabled child in transfer decisions.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a police officer, sought exemption from a routine transfer due to her son's severe autism, which required her close proximity for care. The transfer order was challenged on humanitarian grounds, citing the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the transfer order lacked compelling administrative reasons and that the child's needs outweighed the routine transfer policy, allowing the petitioner to remain at her current post.
Issues: Whether the petitioner could be exempted from a routine transfer due to her child's disability under the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the provisions of the Disabilities Act necessitate consideration of the special needs of caregivers, particularly when no compelling administrative exigencies justify a transfer.
Result: The petition is allowed, quashing the transfer order and allowing the petitioner to remain at her current posting.
JUDGMENT :
(Per M. S. Karnik, J.)
1. By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner seeks directions to the respondents to enforce the effect of Office Memorandum dated 18.03.2024 issued by the Director of Social Welfare, Panaji, Goa. The petitioner prays for a direction to the respondent no.2 to exempt the petitioner from the routine exercise of transfer/rotational transfer and consequently for quashing and setting aside the impugned order dated 14.02.2024. By the impugned transfer order, the petitioner is transferred from SB Centre Ponda to AHTU Panaji.
2. This petition invokes the provisions of ‘The Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016’, (‘The Disabilities Act’, for short). Before elaborating any further, it would be apposite to briefly state that the petitioner’s son ‘K’, is certified by the Institute of Psychiatry and Human Behaviour, Bambolim, Goa, a competent authority under Section 2(e) read with Section 57(1) of the Disabilities Act, to be suffering from mild autism between 40 to 60 percent as a permanent disability in relation to autism. The suffering of ‘K’ is increasing. Considering the nature of the disability, it is the case that petitioner’s presence needs to be in his close proximity. ‘K’ is studying in a school at Ponda where facilities for children with special needs is available. The petitioner is not averse to a transfer but is concerned with the special needs of ‘K’. For this reason, she prays for an exemption from the routine transfer/rotational transfer.
3. The law of transfer is well settled. The petitioner is working in a transferable post. The petitioner cannot claim a vested right to remain in a particular post. Transfer is a routine exercise on completion of a specified tenure or for administrative exigencies even before the completion of the tenure. The impugned order transferring the petitioner was an exercise carried out pursuant to the directions of Election Commission of India. Ordinarily, there was no reason to interfere with such transfer. This Court by an interim order, stayed the impugned order of transfer. During the pendency of the petition, the petitioner has completed her tenure at Ponda. According to the respondents, she is now subject to a routine transfer. The scope of interference in such transfers hardly exists except on the very limited grounds available if the transfer is arbitrary or smacks of malafide or is contrary to the statutory provisions governing transfers. With these considerations in mind, we proceed to examine the facts of the case.
4. The petitioner was appointed as a Lady Police Sub-Inspector on 14.06.2002 and is working as such for almost 22 years. The petitioner’s husband is presently employed with Reliance Industries at Merces-Goa. His office timings are from 8.30 a.m. to 6.30 p.m. Two children are born out of the said wedlock. The petition concerns Master ‘K’, who is at present around 10 years of age. The petitioner with her family, is permanently residing at Ponda, Goa.
5. As indicated earlier, ‘K’ is certified by the competent authority under Section 2(e) read with Section 57(1) of the Disabilities Act to be suffering from mild autism between 40 to 60 percent as a permanent disability in relation to autism. By an Order dated 20.09.2019, the petitioner was transferred from PHQ Panaji to SB Centre, Ponda. By an Order dated 01.06.2020, the petitioner was directed to look after the charge of SB Centre Curchorem. By Order dated 09.09.2020, the petitioner was directed to report to SB(HQ) Panaji, immediately for further duties till further orders. By an Order dated 16.09.2020, the petitioner was directed to continue to work at SB Centre Curchorem, till further orders. On 01.02.2021, the petitioner made representation to the respondent no.2 for sympathetic consideration with a request to revert the said posting from SB Centre Curchorem to SB Centre Ponda. The petitioner was transferred on 16.02.2021 from SB Centre Ponda to AHTU, Mar
The court established that the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act mandates reasonable accommodation for caregivers, prioritizing the welfare of disabled dependents in employment decisions.
The court emphasized that while the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act protects care givers, transfers are essential for institutional efficiency and must balance individual rights with organiza....
Transfer of caregiver to disabled child invalid if violates RPWD Act rights to dignity, rehabilitation and DoP&T guidelines; local policies subordinate; sympathetic posting near medical facilities ma....
Authority's discretionary power in employee transfers must be exercised fairly and in adherence to established policies, especially concerning caregivers of disabled children.
Transfer policies must accommodate employees who are caregivers for differently abled children, ensuring their welfare is prioritized during administrative actions.
Caregivers of parents with benchmark disabilities under RPwD Act entitled to exemption from routine transfers per DoPT guidelines.
Caregiver exemption from transfer for benchmark mental disability applies despite disability pension, emphasizing physical/emotional dependency over financial; policy violation warrants quashing tran....
The main legal point established is that transfer in a transferable job is an exigency of service, and the Courts should not readily interfere with transfer orders made in public interest and for adm....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.