SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2026 Supreme(Online)(CAT) 4434

CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
Kumar Rajesh Chandra, Administrative Member
Baibhav Bardhan – Appellant
Versus
Union of India – Respondent
OA No. 703/2024|CP No. 87 of 2024|OA No. 2233/2017|OA No. 2236/2017



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Shri M.P. Dixit
For the Respondents: Shri T.N. Thakur, Sr.Standing Counsel

Transfer of caregiver to disabled child invalid if violates RPWD Act rights to dignity, rehabilitation and DoP&T guidelines; local policies subordinate; sympathetic posting near medical facilities mandatory.

Headnote:(A) Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 - Section 19 - Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 - Sections 2(d), 2(l), 2(m), 2(s), 3, 4, 16, 17, 24, 27, 28, 38 - DoP&T OMs dated 06.06.2014 & 08.10.2018 - Transfer of government employee who is caregiver to differently abled child suffering from epilepsy/seizure disorder - Transfer policy cannot supersede central government guidelines protecting such employees from transfer - Employee entitled to posting near medical treatment facilities for child’s care and rehabilitation - Departmental transfer policy guidelines do not create entitlement but smooth functioning must yield to statutory rights under RPWD Act and DoP&T OMs - Discriminatory treatment where similar case granted exemption establishes malice - Matter sub-judice not justification to defer decision on representation - Employee’s joining transferred place after assurances entitles sympathetic consideration - Directions to quash transfer orders, allow continuation at preferred station, regularize absence and pay arrears. (Paras 7(i), 7(ii), 7(iii), 8)

(B) Service Law - Transfer - Caregiver to disabled dependent - Duty of employer to consider medical certificates, child’s need for continuous treatment, lack of facilities at remote posting, and statutory protections - Rejection without reasoned consideration of RPWD Act provisions and precedents violative of equality and dignity - Supreme Court ruling requiring joining before representation not absolute bar where humanitarian grounds exist. (Paras 3.3, 7(ii))

Facts of the case:
Senior Auditor transferred multiple times, posted to station near treatment centre for 26-year-old son with epilepsy/seizure disorder - Transfer ordered to remote station 1800 km away despite representations citing DoP&T OMs and medical certificates from government hospital - Temporary suspension, rejection citing local policy, refusal of leave/voluntary retirement, prior OA disposed directing fresh consideration - Joined remote station post-assurances but representation rejected citing sub-judice status - Similar case exempted.

Findings of Court:
Impugned orders quashed; allow continuation at original station; consider unpaid salary from May 2024 and regularize absence per rules.

Issues: Whether transfer orders contravene DoP&T OMs and RPWD Act protecting caregivers of disabled children; validity of rejection citing local policy and sub-judice status; discriminatory treatment.

Ratio Decidendi: Transfer decisions must account for disabled child’s rights to equality, dignity, rehabilitation, inclusive support under RPWD Act; DoP&T OMs mandate exemption from transfer; mechanical rejection without considering medical needs, precedents, and statutory policy is illegal; sympathetic consideration obligatory post-joining.

Result: OA allowed.

Table of Content
1. applicant's prayer to quash transfers and retain posting for disabled child's care. (Para 1 , 2)
2. transfers essential for administrative efficiency; employee must join before challenging. (Para 3)
3. rejoinder highlights policy violations and station hardships for child's treatment. (Para 4 , 5)
4. rpwd act 2016 mandates special consideration for caregivers of disabled children overriding transfer policies. (Para 6 , 7)
5. quash transfers, permit posting at danapur, regularize salary. (Para 8)

O R D E R

Per Kumar Rajesh Chandra, Administrative Member:

The applicant has approached this Tribunal under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 praying for the following relief:-

“(i) That your Lordships may graciously be pleased to quash and set aside the order dated 06.12.2024, together with orders dated 19.05.2023, 07.08.2023, 12.03.2024, 13.03.2024 and 30.07.2024 as contained in Annexure A/1, A/2, A/3, A/4, A/5 & A/5 (a) respectively qua the applicant being illegal, punitive and in contravention of DoPT OM dated 06.06.2014 & 08.10.2018.

(ii) That your Lordships may graciously be pleased to direct/command the respondents to allow the Applicant to continue under the Respondent No. 6 at AAO BSO, Danapur (Bihar) without any disturbance to save and protect the life of his differently disabled son as applicant being care-giver.

(iii) That the respondents be further directed to grant all consequential benefits including unpaid salary from May 2024 till date and regularize the entire period from 13.03.2024 to the date of allowing him to work at Danapur as on duty for all purposes.

(iv) Any other relief/reliefs including the cost of the proceeding may be allowed in favor of the Applicant.

2. The facts of the case, as delineated by the applicant in this OA, are as follows:-

(i) The applicant, an employee of Ministry of Defence, was initially appointed on 01.11.1992 as Auditor at CDA, Kolkata. He was transferred to Patna in January, 1997 and after his promotion as Senior Auditor on 29.12.1997. He was again transferred to Kolkata in the year 2001. Thereafter, he was transferred to Patna, Varanasi and Patna in 2005, 2011 and 2017 respectively. Finally, while working as Senior Auditor he was again transferred from Patna to Danapurvide order dated 10.03.2023[Annexure A/5(b)] where he joined on 22.02.2023.

(ii) It is contended by applicant that his 26 years old son is suffering from Epilepsy/seizure disorder and is under constant treatment at Patna and due to said disability of his disabled child, the applicant is caregiver. The applicant has enclosed the copy of medical certificates as at Annexure A/6 to the OA.

(iii) To utter surprise of applicant, within two months from the date of his transfer at AAO BSO, Danapur he received the impugned transfer order dated 19.05.2023 (Annexure- A/2) whereby his name appears at Sl. No. 20 and he has been ordered to be transferred from AAO BSO Danapur to Pay & Accounts Office (Other Ranks), Gopalpur (Odisha) which is about 1800 Km away from Danapur. According to the applicant the said transfer order is against the DoP&T OM dated 06.06.2014 and 08.10.2018 (Annexure-A/7 Series) which clearly protects from transfer of Government employee who have differently abled child.

(iv) On his representation dated 24.05.2023 reqeusting for cancellation of his transfer order on the ground of his dependent disabled son, the applicant was directed to submit latest medical certificate for consideration. When the applicant submitted the medical certificate where the treatment of his son was going on, he was directed to submit the same from a Government hospital within 15 days. After his various representations he was granted 14 days’ time for procuring the said certificate from a Government hospital vide letter dated 23.08.2023 (Annexure - A/12). Finally, the applicant supplied the medical certificate issued by the CGHS along with his representation dated 31.08.2023 requesting for exemption from his transfer

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top