Transfer is an incident of service and an employee does not have any legal right to be transferred to a place of their choice. The needs of the administration take precedence above the preferences of individual service members. A party aggrieved must make out its case showing malafide on the part of the authority concerned to seek indulgence of a Court in the disputes relating to the transfer.

ORDER

Chandra Dhari Singh, J. (Oral)--The instant writ petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India has been filed on behalf of petitioner seeking the following reliefs:

"a) Set aside the order/impugned action of rejection Dated 21/07/2020(Annexure P/-14) on the application of the petitioner for transfer from Khetri Copper Complex, Jhunjhunu, Rajasthan to Regional Sales Office, Delhi and direct the respondents to transfer the petitioner to Regional Sales Office, Delhi...

b) Any other order/relief which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case be issued in favour of the petitioner, in the interest of justice."

2. Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that the present writ has been filed by the petitioner being aggrieved by the decision of CMD, Hindustan Copper Ltd. (hereinafter "HCL"), respondent No. 3. The respondent No. 3 vide its office order dated 21st July 2020, has rejected the representation dated 23rd April 2020, made by the petitioner for his transfer from Khetri Copper Complex, Jhunjhun, Rajasthan (hereinafter "KCC") to the Delhi Regional Office.

3. It is submitted that the petitioner is specially-abled with 40% loco motor disability and he had joined the respondent No. 3 organization as Assistant Manager (HR) on 29th February 2016 under the Special Recruitment Drive for PWD-2016, and after a while, he was promoted to the post of Deputy Manager (HR).

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is a specially-abled person living alone in the state of Rajasthan. The petitioner's hometown is in Delhi where all of his family members reside. The petitioner being disabled inter alia other medical grounds, is unable to carry out his day-to-day routine work. Due to the said reasons, the petitioner has made various representations before different authorities for his transfer from the KCC to the Delhi Regional Office.

5. It is submitted that on 28th July, 2018, the petitioner submitted his representation before the Secretary, Ministry of Mines, Government of India for his transfer from KCC to the Delhi Regional Office. In response to his representation, the petitioner received a reply dated 3rd October 2018, from Dy. Manager (HR) HCL vide letter Ref. No. Estt/2/5883. In the said reply, the request for transfer of the petitioner was rejected with the remark `No Additional Requirement'. Respondent rejected the representation of the petitioner on the ground that, at present, there is no additional requirement for any HR personnel at the Delhi Regional Office.

6. It is further submitted that while the request of the petitioner for transfer was rejected, during the same period, another employee namely Sh. Inder Raj, Deputy Manager (Administrative) was transferred vide order dated 10th December 2018. It is submitted that this act of the respondent No. 3 amounts to discrimination.

7. It is submitted that being aggrieved by the abovementioned rejection, the petitioner approached the respondent No. 2 through the Chief Commissioner of Persons with Disabilities under the relevant provisions of Right of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016, on the ground of discrimination on the part of the respondent No. 2 as well as medical difficulties. Acting upon the petitioner's representation dated 26th December 2018, the learned Chief Commissioner of Persons with Disabilities passed an order dated 17th January 2020, directing the respondent organization to consider the transfer of the petitioner, and to further submit an action taken report within 90 days. The relevant portion of the order is reproduced below:

"10. The Court after hearing both the complainant and respondent recommends that the respondent may consider posting the complainant in their Delhi office if agreed to by the complainant and submit compliance report to this Court within 90 days of date of issuance of this Order."

8. It is further submitted that the respond