Transfer orders are valid unless they violate statutory provisions or are shown to be mala fide.

Judgment Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari, J.

Heard on the question of admission.

2. The present intra court appeal under Section 5 of the High Court Act, 1958 assails the judgment dated 16.12.2025 passed in WP(c) No.47130 of 2025 whereby the Writ Petition filed by the appellant ag-

grieved by Ext.P4 order transferring him, has been dismissed.

FACTS

3. The brief facts of the case are that the appellant who is work-

ing as Chief Manager (Security) in IREL (India) Ltd., Chavara has been transferred to Manavalakkurichi Unit of the Company vide Ext.P4 or- der dated 10.09.2025. The appellant had challenged the transfer or- der earlier in WPC No.44067 of 2025. Vide judgment dated 25.11.2025, the Writ Petition was disposed of directing the first respondent to consider Ext.P13 representation submitted by the appellant and take appropriate decision showing as much sympathy and compassion within a period of two weeks. Pursuant to the judgment passed by this Court in W.P.(C) No.44067 of 2025, the respondents have issued Ext.P9 dated 04.12.2025 wherein the respondents have held that the appellant is holding the senior post of Chief Manager (Security) which is a highly sensitive position from the security point of view of the unit which is dealing with atomic minerals. The appellant has again approached this Court after rejection of the representation on the ground that his wife aged about 47 years is suffering from 40% disability as is evident from Ext.P1 certificate issued by the Kerala Health Service Department for persons with disability. In such a sit- uation, taking into consideration the provisions of the Rights of Per- sons with Disabilities Act, 2016 (for short ‘The Act of 2016’), the trans- fer of the appellant deserves to be exempted from the routine exer- cise of transfer/rotational transfer subject to the administrative con-

straints.

CONTENTION OF APPELLANT

4. The learned counsel for the appellant contended that the learned Single Judge erred in dismissing the Writ Petition without taking into consideration the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Balan.C. v Union of India ( 2024 1 KHC 64 ) wherein, in similar facts and circumstances, the Apex Court has considered the transfer order to be illegal, holding that if a person with disability is affected by such transfer, and in no way the best interest of the child can be protected consequent upon implementing such transfer order, is illegal. The learned counsel further contended that there is no one to look after the aged members of the family.

4.1 The learned counsel for the appellant further brought to the notice of this Court the Circulars issued by the Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances & Pensions Department (DoPT), Government of In- dia dated 08.10.2018 (Ext.P2) regarding exemption from the routine exercise of transfer in respect of government employees who are care-givers of dependent daughter/son/parents/spouse/ brother/sister with specified disability. Admittedly, the spouse of the appellant is a person with benchmark disability as defined under Sec- tion 2(r) of the Act of 2016 which is evident from Ext.P1, the medical certificate which shows that the disability is 40%. Therefore, the pro- visions of the Act of 2016 would be applicable. The learned Single Judge failed to consider these two aspects and also did not adopt a liberal approach looking into the conditions of the family members. Therefore, the judgment passed by the learned Single Judge deserves to be set aside. In view of the aforesaid, a sympathetic view deserves to be adopted and thus the Writ Appeal deserves to be allowed.

CONTENTION OF RESPONDENTS

5. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondents vehe-

mently opposed the prayer and submitted that the learned counsel for the appellant is una