Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2026 Supreme(Online)(CAT) 4843

CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
Harvinder Kaur Oberoi, Judicial Member, Sumeet Jerath, Administrative Member
UPENDRA TIWARI – Appellant
Versus
BHARAT SANCHAR NIGAM LIMITED THROUGH CHAIRMAN CUM MANAGING DIRECTOR – Respondent
O.A. No. 4944/2025|OA No. 3301/2025

Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr. Saaket Jain with Ms. Shivangi Anand, Mr. Parth Taran Singh and Ms. Swati Jain
For the Respondents: Mr. Ashok Kumar Poddar

Caregiver exemption from transfer for benchmark mental disability applies despite disability pension, emphasizing physical/emotional dependency over financial; policy violation warrants quashing transfers, prioritizing disabled interests under RPwD Act.

Headnote:(A) Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 - Section 19 - BSNL Transfer Policy - Clause 6(i) - Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 - Sections 2(r), 2(zc) - DoP&T OM dated 02.02.2024 - Exemption from routine transfer/rotational transfer - Employee as sole caregiver to brother with 75% benchmark disability (chronic psychosis/mental illness) - Receipt of disability pension does not negate dependency for caregiving purposes - Dependency to be viewed as physical/emotional rather than purely financial - Transfer orders quashed where policy not applied in letter and spirit, lacking empathy to caregiver at fag end of career - Posting directed to one of seven choice stations near residence for daily caregiving - Administrative constraints must not outweigh interests of disabled dependent under RPwD Act - Article 21 right to life encompasses such protections - Interference warranted where transfer violates policy and shows non-application of mind. (Paras 9, 10, 11, 12)

(B) Service Law - Transfer - Normal incident of service, not to be interfered with unless vitiated by mala fides or violation of statutory policy/rules - Courts/Tribunals to accord primacy to interests of disabled dependents over routine administrative exigencies, subject to overwhelming constraints. (Paras 8, 9)

Facts of the case:
Applicant, a senior employee nearing retirement, sole caregiver to mentally disabled brother (75% benchmark disability, chronic psychosis) post mother's death, entitled to exemption under transfer policy as amended. Earlier accommodated near residence on similar grounds, but transferred to remote location despite representations, medical recommendations, and seven choice stations provided near residence. Respondents rejected exemption citing brother's disability pension as negating dependency, modified posting to state capital but denied nearby placement, leading to second OA after compliance with prior Tribunal directions.

Findings of Court:
Impugned speaking/transfer/relieving orders quashed; respondents directed to grant Clause 6(i) benefit and post applicant at one of seven choice stations near residence within three months.

Issues: Whether financial independence via disability pension disqualifies caregiver exemption under transfer policy for benchmark mental disability; whether modification to distant state capital complies with policy, Tribunal directions, and RPwD Act; scope of judicial interference in transfers violating disability protections.

Ratio Decidendi: Transfer policy exemption for caregivers of specified benchmark disabilities (including mental illness) applies irrespective of pension income, focusing on physical/emotional dependency; respondents' narrow interpretation and non-consideration of choices reflect non-application of mind; primacy to disabled person's interests under RPwD Act and Article 21 over routine transfers unless insurmountable administrative constraints.

Result: OA allowed.

Table of Content
1. factual history of transfer disputes and representations. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4)
2. applicant's entitlement to caregiver exemption under clause 6(i). (Para 5 , 6)
3. respondents' defense on administrative constraints and dependency. (Para 7 , 8)
4. court analysis of policy violation and caregiver needs. (Para 9 , 10 , 11)
5. quashing orders and directing nearby posting. (Para 12)

ORDER

Hon'ble Dr. Sumeet Jerath, Member (A) :

1.This is the second round of litigation. The instant OA has been filed by the applicant under section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 seeking the following reliefs :

“A. Quash or set aside the impugned speaking order dated 05.12.2025 passed by Respondent No.1.

B. Quash or set aside the impugned transfer order dated 05.12.2025 passed by Respondent No.1 qua Applicant at Serial No.2

C. Quash or set aside the impugned relieving order dated 11.12.2025 passed by Respondent No. 1.

D. Direct the Respondents to grant benefit of Clause 6(i) of the BSNL Transfer Policy to Applicant and accordingly, grant him exemption from the impugned transfer.

E. Direct the Respondents to post the Applicant at Corporate Office, New Delhi on a similar post that commensurates to his level or at any other place closer to Gurgaon, in case someone else has been posted at Applicant's place.

F. Pass any other order this Hon'ble tribunal may deem fit.”

2. This OA was heard by the Coordinate Bench of this Tribunal on 23.12.2025 and the following order was passed :-

“Heard learned counsel for both the parties.

2. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the present OA has been filed against the order dated 05.12.2025 passed by respondent No.1. It is relevant to mention that order dated 05.12.2025 has been passed in persuance to order dated 16.09.2025 wherein, the respondents are directed to decide the applicant's representations dated 24.11.2021 and 22.05.2025. Strictly in accordance with law and clause 6.1 of the BSNL Transfer Policy on passing a reasoned and speaking order.

3. Learned counsel for the applicant draws our attention to Para 5 of the impugned order wherein the respondents have distinguished the case of the applicant on the ground that the brother the applicant is financially independent. Therefore, he is not a dependent family member. In the case of the applicant that earlier, the mother of the applicant was the caregiver; however, she expired on 08.01.2019, and thereafter the applicant became the sole caregiver of his brother, who is admittedly suffering from Mental illness.

4. The issue remains whether financially independent person requires a caregiver or not. In these circumstances, the respondents are directed to maintain the status qua and not to take any coercive action against the applicant till the next date of hearing.

5. Learned counsel for the respondents seeks a weeks' time to file a detailed reply.

6. List on 08.01.2026.

Order Dasti.”

3. Subsequently, we had heard this matter on 08.01.2026 and the following order was passed :-

“Learned counsel for the applicant submits that pursuant to an earlier order of this Tribunal, the respondents were directed to consider the representation of the applicant. The said representation has since been considered and rejected.

Learned counsel for the respondents, however, submits that the representation has not been rejected; rather, the transfer order of the applicant has been modified from Dhenkanal, Odisha to Bhubaneswar.

Learned counsel for the applicant reiterates that the so-called modification of the transfer order amounts to rejection of the representation, since the applicant is the sole caregiver of his disabled brother who is residing at Gurgaon. The applicant had specifically sought a choice posting at a place from where he could take care of his brother and had sought exemption under the applicable transfer norms. It is submitted that the respondents have rejected the representation in violation of the said norms.

At this stage, learned counsel for the res

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2026 Supreme(Online)(CAT) 4843

CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNALHarvinder Kaur Oberoi, Judicial Member, Sumeet Jerath, Administrative MemberUPENDRA TIWARI – AppellantVersusBHARAT SANCHAR NIGAM LIMITED THROUGH CHAIRMAN CUM MANAGING DIRECTOR – RespondentO.A. No. 4944/2025|OA No. 3301/2025

Caregiver exemption from transfer for benchmark mental disability applies despite disability pension, emphasizing physical/emotional dependency over financial; policy violation warrants quashing transfers, prioritizing disabled interests under RPwD Act.

Cases Referred (3)

CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
Harvinder Kaur Oberoi, Judicial Member, Sumeet Jerath, Administrative Member
UPENDRA TIWARI – Appellant
Versus
BHARAT SANCHAR NIGAM LIMITED THROUGH CHAIRMAN CUM MANAGING DIRECTOR – Respondent
O.A. No. 4944/2025|OA No. 3301/2025