Transfer policies must respect the caregiving obligations of employees, especially regarding those caring for individuals with disabilities.

The applicant is a Trained Graduate Teacher in Physical and Health Education in Kendriya Vidyalaya, Idukki, Painavu. She is a native of Thrissur. Till she was displaced by Annexure A-1 order on 26.06.2024, for nearly 17 years, she had been working in Thrissur. According to the applicant, she is the care giver of a mentally retarded girl child of 24 years, who suffers from mental retardation and the disability is estimated to be 50%. In due recognition of this fact, KVS was gracious enough in retaining her at Thrissur. Thus, she has completed 17 years in Thrissur. According to the applicant, taking into account the disability of the daughter, she is entitled to be retained in Thrissur. However, to her utter dismay, she has been transferred to Painavu, a hard station, which is illegal and violative of the standing instructions, transfer policy and provisions of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act , 2016. Thus, she has approached the Tribunal for annulling Annexures A-1 and A-3 and transferring the 4^th respondent in her place in Thrissur, for a direction to retain her at KV, Thrissur or KV, Ramavarmapuram.

2. Inter alia, it is submitted that the 5^th respondent presently working at Ramavarmapuram is willing to move to Painavu, that aspect was not taken into consideration. The crux of the contention of the applicant is that even though she is the sole care giver of a mentally retarded child, she has been displaced without considering the provisions of the Act, the transfer policy and the official memoranda issued by the DoPT, etc.

3. The respondents 1 to 3 have filed reply statement as well as additional reply statement contending that the transfer was effected fully in terms of the transfer policy and also honouring the online transfer application submitted by the applicant. A copy of her application has been produced as Annexure R-3(a). In the application, she had given five choice stations, Ottappalam, Painavu, Kochi, Trivandrum and Wellingdon in the order of preference. Since there was no vacancy at Ottappalam, she was transferred to Painavu taking into consideration the displacement counts. They also pointed out that the 5^th respondent has expressed that she is not willing to be transferred to Idukki.

4. The 4^th respondent filed reply opposing the contentions of the applicant. According to him, he had been working in Idukki, a hard station for the previous three years and was transferred from that station taking into account his transfer counts.

5. The 5^th respondent remains ex-parte. The applicant a filed rejoinder also.

6. I heard the learned Counsel for the applicant, the learned Standing Counsel for respondents 1 to 3 and also the learned Counsel for the 4^th respondent.

7. The fact that the applicant is the care giver of a 24 year old girl child who is suffering from mental retardation with 50% disability is not in dispute. The applicant had been in Thrissur in the previous 17 years without any transfer, considering her immunity under medical grounds. Therefore, I am sure that if the disability of the daughter was given due weightage, perhaps occasion for displacing the applicant would not have arisen. There is also substance in the submission of the learned Counsel for the applicant that the online portal does not give opportunity to highlight such a disability though she had submitted medical certificate before the respondents. On the other hand, the learned Standing Counsel for R-1 to 3 invited my pointed attention to Annexure R-3(a) and submitted that the claim of the applicant that she is entitled to get benefits on medical grounds or of the care giver of a disabled daughter is not reflected in