Government employees have no vested right to remain posted at a preferred location; transfers based on administrative exigencies are permissible unless statutory violations occur.

JUDGMENT

[VIA VIDEO CONFERENCING]

Rajiv Sahai Endlaw, J.

CM No.14785/2021 (for exemption)

1. Allowed, subject to just exceptions and as per extant rules.

2. The application is disposed of.

W.P.(C) No.4788/2021 & CM No.14784/2021 (for stay)

3. This petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, impugns the order dated 31st March, 2021 of Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT), Principal Bench, New Delhi, of dismissal of O.A. No.726/2021 preferred by the petitioner, an Assistant in the Architectural Department at Public Works Department (PWD), New Delhi, with respect to her transfer to Chandigarh.

4. We have perused the records and heard the counsel for the petitioner.

5. It is the case of the petitioner, that (i) the petitioner, now aged 56 years, joined the Architectural Department of Ministry of Housing and Urban Affairs, on 10th December, 1986, on the post of Assistant; (ii) the petitioner, since 1986 i.e. for nearly 36 years, has been posted at Delhi; (iii) the petitioner was diagnosed as suffering from "hole in macula of eye and retinal detachment" and underwent two surgeries therefor in the year 2014; (iv) on 23rd June, 2016, transfers of officials, staff, employees in PWD were effected but the Transfer and Posting Committee and Hard Case Committee of the respondents, being satisfied that the petitioner, on medical grounds, was required to be at Delhi, did not effect the transfer of the petitioner; (v) in the year 2018, the petitioner was promoted from the post of Assistant, to the post of Technical Officer and was required to join duties at Raipur; (vi) the petitioner, for the sake of remaining at Delhi owing to her medical condition, refused the said promotion and vide the Office Memorandum dated 12th February, 2019, was allowed to continue at Delhi, as an Assistant; (vii) on 5th March, 2020, though again transfers were effected but the name of the petitioner was not included therein; however the said transfer order was kept in abeyance owing to the prevailing pandemic and which resulted in another transfer order dated 28th April, 2020 being issued and which surprisingly included the name of the petitioner, transferring the petitioner from New Delhi to Chandigarh; (viii) the petitioner immediately made a representation dated 30th April, 2020, pleading that she was required to undergo regular checkups and treatment and that the nature of her disease was such that an emergency could arise at any point of time, requiring her to avail of medical treatment at Delhi and it was thus not possible for her to move out of Delhi; (ix) however the respondents, vide order dated 23rd September, 2020, rejected the representation of the petitioner; (x) the petitioner made yet another representation dated 28th September, 2020, also pleading that owing to the prevalent pandemic, it was not possible for her to move from Delhi to Chandigarh; (xi) however vide order dated 1st February, 2021, the petitioner was directed to join at Chandigarh; (xii) the petitioner preferred O.A. No.376/2021 before CAT, impugning her transfer; (xiii) vide order dated 19th February, 2021, CAT, Principal Bench, New Delhi directed the respondents to consider the representation dated 28th September, 2020 of the petitioner and to dispose of the same by passing a reasoned and speaking order and to not give effect to the transfer order of the petitioner till such order; (xiv) the respondents, vide order dated 15th March, 202