Transfer orders in public administration are justified unless proven to be mala fide, unlawful, or against established statutory provisions; no absolute right for an employee to remain in one postal location exists.

JUDGMENT

Navin Chawla, J. The present petition has been filed seeking setting aside of the order dated 04.09.2020 (hereinafter referred to as the `impugned order') passed by the learned Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi (in short, the learned `CAT') in OA No. 1230 of 2020, dismissing the petition filed by the petitioner. The petitioner further prays for quashing and setting aside of the Office Order No. 21(19)/2020/Coord unit/C.E(W CUMTLQA)/EE-C II dated 09.04.2020 (hereinafter referred to as the `impugned Office Order') issued by the respondent no. 2, transferring the petitioner from New Delhi to Jaipur.

I. FACTS

2. It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner, in June 1992, joined as a Section Officer in the Horticulture Wing of the respondent no.2. While in service, during the year 2016, the hearing impairment of the petitioner became quite severe, following which a duly-constituted Medical Board examined him at Dr. Ram Manohar Lohia Hospital, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as `Dr. RML Hospital'). The petitioner, vide Disability Certificate dated 14.06.2016, was found suffering from `bilateral moderately severe mixed hearing loss with amputation left finger' and was assessed as having permanent disability of 65%, that is, 63% for hearing and 2% for locomotor disability of left upper limb.

3. The respondent no.2, vide letter dated 29.12.2016, sought verification from the respondent no.3 Dr.RML Hospital as to the genuineness of the disability certificate issued by the Hospital to the petitioner. In response to the above letter, Dr. RML Hospital, on 09.01.2017, confirmed the veracity of the Disability Certificate, whereafter, the respondent no. 2 issued an order dated 31.01.2017 directing the incorporation of the petitioner's disability in his service record.

4. The petitioner asserts that the respondent no. 2, vide order dated 13.08.2018, invited options from Section Officers (Horticulture) for positing at certain stations. The petitioner gave his willingness to be posted to Guwahati and was accordingly transferred to Guwahati vide order dated 24.08.2018. The petitioner joined his new posting only on 18.02.2019.

5. The petitioner states that he opted for his transfer to the North-Eastern Region as he had expected that he shall be able to manage his affairs independently without assistance, however, soon after joining his place of posting, in the absence of his wife, who was unable to join him at Guwahati due to her permanent job as a teacher in a school in Delhi-NCR, the petitioner started facing a lot of difficulty in managing his day-to-day activities, which made it quite impossible for him to live alone in Assam. The petitioner, therefore, made a representation to the Director General, Central Public Works Department, on 18.03.2019, seeking a transfer back to New Delhi. The same was followed up with subsequent representations dated 16.08.2019 and 19.11.2018.

6. Vide order dated 16.12.2019, the petitioner along with five other Section Officers was promoted to the post of Assistant Director (Horticulture) [hereinafter referred to as `AD(H)']. Despite representations made seeking transfer to New Delhi, the petitioner was retained in the Eastern Region and vide order dated 17.12.2019, the petitioner was posted to DD (Horticulture), Guwahati HQ: Shillong.

7. Aggrieved by the said transfer, the petitioner made representations to the respondents as well as to the Department of Empowerment of Persons with Disabilities (Divyangjan) under the Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment, Government of India (in short, `DEP