Transfer orders invalid due to non-compliance with statutory exemptions and procedural requirements for caregiver employees.

ORDER

Per: SURESH KUMAR BATRA MEMBER (J):-

1. Since the issue involved, facts, relief claimed and grounds in support thereof are similar in all the above captioned Original Applications, therefore, these are disposed of by a common order, with the consent of learned counsel for the parties. The detailed facts, for the sake of convenience and to avoid repetition, are extracted from O.A. No. 33/2025 and brief notes of other cases are added thereto. The relief claimed in these OAs is as under:-

“(i) The impugned transfer order dated 11/10/2024 (Annexure A6) qua the applicant and impugned order dated 26/12/2024 Annexure A-10 my kindly be set aside and quashed.

(ii) That after setting aside the Annexure A-6 and A-10, the respondents may be directed to permit the applicant to discharge his duty as TT at Karsog SDO (T) Karsog.

(iii) That the action of the respondent whereby the applicant has been ordered to be transferred from his recruitment unit (Mandi) to outside recruitment unit being contrary to rule 8 of transfer policy dated 07/05/2008 Annexure A-1, A-2 dated 27/08/2020 and Annexure A-11 dated 14/03/2024 may kindly be set aside and quashed.”

2. The facts of the case (OA NO. 33/2025), in brief, are that the applicant was initially appointed as a Daily Rated Mazdoor on 10.07.1996 in the Secondary Switching Area (SSA) Recruitment Unit, Mandi, at Telephone Exchange, Karsog. He was thereafter placed as a Temporary Status Mazdoor (TSM) on 12.02.1999 and subsequently conferred the status of Regular Mazdoor on 30.06.2000. In the year 2012, he was transferred to Telephone Exchange, Seri Banglow, where he served till the year 2022, when he was shifted to Transmission Karsog, where he continues to work till date. When the applicant came to know that he had been transferred to Keylong under SDO (T) Keylong, he immediately submitted a representation dated 14.10.2024 requesting the respondent to cancel his transfer on the ground that his father, aged about 76 years, is paralyzed and suffers from 75% physical disability due to cerebral palsy, and his mother, aged 74 years, is also suffering from age-related ailments. Both his parents are entirely dependent on him, and transfer to a distant station at this stage would be detrimental to their well-being.

3. As the said representation remained unattended, the applicant along with others assailed the impugned transfer order dated 11.10.2024 before this Tribunal in O.A. No. 063/1304/2024 titled Anirudh and Others vs. BSNL and Others, wherein the present applicant was arrayed as applicant No. 8. The said Original Application was disposed of by this Tribunal vide order dated 17.10.2024 directing the respondents to decide the representations, including that of the present applicant, in terms of the transfer policy dated 07.05.2008 as well as letters dated 27.08.2020 and 08.03.2021, within six weeks of receipt of the order. The competent authority was further directed to pass a reasoned and speaking order dealing with the contentions raised by the applicants and, till such decision, the applicants were to be allowed to work in the same capacity as on 11.10.2024. In compliance with the aforesaid direction, the respondent authorities passed the impugned order dated 26.12.2024 rejecting the representation of the applicant and justifying the transfer as being in accordance with rules and in the interest of service. Aggrieved by the said order, the applicant has approached this Tribunal seeking appropriate relief.

4. The applicant challenges the impugned orders dated 11.10.2024 and