The Court examines whether the transfer policy of a public employer must be relaxed to accommodate the essential caregiving requirements of a minor child suffering from 100% permanent disability, pursuant to the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016.

O R D E R

% 20.04.2026

1. The present petition has been instituted on behalf of a minor child, suffering from 100% permanent locomotor disability, who is entirely dependent on continuous caregiving for basic functions including mobility, hygiene, and rehabilitation. The Petitioner’s father, employed with the Railways and presently posted at Lucknow, is stated to be the sole earning member as well as the primary caregiver. It is contended that despite repeated representations seeking transfer to Dehradun, where the Petitioner resides, the Respondents have declined such request primarily on the ground of non-availability of a suitable post in the technical cadre, having regard to the father’s medical category.

2. Mr. Rahul Bajaj, counsel for the Petitioner, submits that the present petition is not merely a service-related grievance, but is founded on the Petitioner’s fundamental rights, as well as the statutory protections available under the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016, which mandate reasonable accommodation and prioritisation of the needs of persons with disabilities. Reliance is placed on Paragraph 226 of the Indian Railway Establishment Code , which permits favourable consideration of transfer requests in “special cases of hardship.” It is urged that, in the peculiar facts of the present case, the competent authority, namely the General Manager, ought to exercise such discretionary powers, including by exploring alternative or non-technical postings, so as to enable the Petitioner’s father to effectively discharge his caregiving responsibilities.

3. It is further highlighted that the Petitioner’s mother, who is presently the primary caregiver, is herself suffering from medical issues and is physically constrained in attending to the Petitioner’s needs, particularly in view of the child’s increasing physical dependency. In these circumstances, it is submitted that the presence of the Petitioner’s father is indispensable for ensuring a life of dignity and adequate care.

4. Issue notice. Mr. Brijesh Kumar Tamber, counsel accepts notice on behalf of Respondents. Let counter affidavit be filed within four weeks from today. Rejoinder, if any, be filed within two weeks thereafter.

5. Respondents shall, in the meanwhile, obtain specific instructions as to whether, in the facts of the present case, any accommodation can be considered within the existing policy framework, including placement in an alternative post commensurate with the father’s medical category.

6. List on 12th May, 2026.