Defence Research And Development Organisation Drdo & Anr. vs Dr Deepti Bhardwaj
- Court
- Delhi High Court
$~46
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
# CNR No. DLHC010402292026
+ W.P.(C) 12454/2026, CAV 411/2026, CM APPLs. 57835/2026
& 57836/2026
DEFENCE RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT
ORGANISATION DRDO & ANR. .....Petitioners
Through: Ms. Saumya Tandon, CGSC
and Ms. Akanksha Suman, GP
versus
DR DEEPTI BHARDWAJ .....Respondent
Through: Mr. Manoj Goel, Sr. Adv. with
Ms. Sunieta Ojha, Mr. Pragti Bhatia, Ms.
Vasudha Priyansha, Mr. Sarthak Asthana
and Ms. Priyanshu Agarwal, Advs.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C. HARI SHANKAR
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD KUMAR
JUDGMENT (ORAL)
% 03.09.2026
C. HARI SHANKAR, J.
1. This writ petition assails the judgment dated 29 June 2026
whereby the challenge, by the respondent, to her transfer from Delhi
to Dehardun, has succeeded.
2. Aggrieved by the said decision, the Defence Research
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) 12454/2026 Page 1 of 14
Signed By:PRAMOD
KUMAR VATS
Signing Date:08.09.2026
15:37:56
1
Development Organisation
has instituted the present writ petition
before us.
We have heard Ms. Saumya Tandon, learned CGSC for the
3.
petitioners and Mr. Manoj Goel, learned Senior Counsel for the
respondent, at length.
4. The respondent is admittedly the parent of a child who suffers
from benchmark disability within the meaning of Section 2(d) of the
2
Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 . The respondent’s
child was examined twice, firstly by the VIMHANS and, thereafter,
3
by the All India Institute of Medical Sciences . VIMHANS certified
that the respondent’s child was suffering from “Autism Spectrum
4
Disorder (High Functioning) ”, whereas AIIMS issued a Disability
Certificate stating that the respondent’s child was suffering from
5
“Specific Learning Disorder in writing only (SLD)
”. It was also
certified that the extent of disability of the respondent’s child was
greater than 40%.
5. The Tribunal has held, and it is not disputed by petitioners
before us, that ASD as well as SLD are both benchmark disabilities
under the RPWD Act.
6. On the ground that her child was suffering from benchmark
1
“DRDO” hereinafter
2
“RPWD Act” hereinafter
3
“AIIMS” hereinafter
4
“ASD” hereinafter
5
“SLD” hereinafter
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) 12454/2026 Page 2 of 14
Signed By:PRAMOD
KUMAR VATS
Signing Date:08.09.2026
15:37:56
disability, the respondent assailed the decision dated 27 March 2026,
to transfer her from Delhi to Dehradun before the Tribunal by way of
OA 2026/2026.
By judgment dated 29 June 2026, the Tribunal has allowed the
7.
OA, against which, as we have noted, the DRDO has instituted the
6
present writ petition. The Tribunal has relied on Office Memorandum
dated 8 October 2018 and 2 February 2024 issued by the Department
7
of Personnel and Training
, from which the Tribunal has extracted the
relevant paragraphs, and we deem it appropriate to do likewise :
DOPT OM dated 8 October 2018
“F. No. 420112//2014-Estt.(Res)
Government of India
Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances & Pensions
Department of Personnel and Training
North Block, New Delhi
Dated the 8 October, 2018
OFFICE MEMORANDUM
Subject: Exemption from the routine exercise of transfer/
rotational transfer .
Considering that transfer of a Government employee who serves as
the main care giver of persons with disability would have a bearing
on the systematic rehabilitation of persons with disabilities, the
Government issued OM of even number dated June 6, 2014 to
exempt such employee from routine exercise of transfer/rotational
transfer subject to administrative constraints.
2. The scope of disability initially had covered (i) blindness or
low vision (ii) hearing impairment (iii) locomotor disability or
cerebral Palsy(iv) leprosy cured (v) mental retardation (vi) mental
6
“OM”, hereinafter
7
“DOPT”, hereinafter
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) 12454/2026 Page 3 of 14
Signed By:PRAMOD
KUMAR VATS
Signing Date:08.09.2026
15:37:56
illness and (vii) multiple disabilities, which subsequently, vide
OMs of even number dated November 17, 2014 and January 5,
2016, was further extended to include 'Autism', 'Thalassemia' and
'Haemophilia'.
3. With the enactment of the Rights of Persons with
Disabilities Act, 2016 on April 17, 2017, the following instructions
are issued in supersession of the above-mentioned OMs of even
number dated June 6, 2014, November17, 2014 and January 5,
2016 with regard to the eligibility for seeking exemption from
routine exercise of transfer/rotational transfer:
(i) A Government employee who is a care-giver of
dependent daughter/son/parents/spouse/brother/sister with
Specific Disability, as certified by the certifying authority
as a Person with Benchmark Disability as defined under
Section 2(r) of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act,
2016 may be exempted from the routine exercise of
transfer/rotational transfer subject to the administrative
constraints.
(ii) The term "Specified Disability" as defined in the
Schedule to the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act,
2016, covers (i) Locomotor disability including leprosy
cured person, cerebral palsy, dwarfism, muscular dystrophy
and Acid attack victims (ii) Blindness (iii) Low-vision (iv)
Deaf (v) Hard of hearing (vi) Speech and language
disabilities (vii) Intellectual disability including specific
learning disabilities and autism spectrum disorder (viii)
Mental illness (ix) Disability caused due to: (a)
Neurological conditions such as Multiple sclerosis and
Parkinson's disease (b) Blood disorder Haemophilia,
Thalassemia and Sickle cell disease and (x) Multiple
disabilities (more than one of the above specified
disabilities) including deaf blindness and any other category
of disabilities as may be notified by the Central
Government.
(iii) The term ‘Specified Disability’ as defined herein is
applicable as grounds only for the purpose of seeking
exemption from routine transfer/ rotational transfer by a
Government employee, who is a care-giver of dependent
daughter/son/parents/spouse/brother/sister as stated in Рага
3(i) above.”
DOPT OM dated 2 February 2024
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) 12454/2026 Page 4 of 14
Signed By:PRAMOD
KUMAR VATS
Signing Date:08.09.2026
15:37:56
“36035/44/2023-Estt.(Res-II)
Government of India
Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances & Pensions
Department of Personnel and Training
North Block, New Delhi
nd
Dated the 2 April, 2024
OFFICE MEMORANDUM
Subject: Guidelines for providing certain facilities in respect
of persons with disabilities who are already employed in
Government for efficient performance of their duties.
*
I. Exemption from routine exercise of transfer/ rotational
transfer in respect of Government employee, who is a caregiver
of Person with Disability dependents:
(i) A Government employee who is a care-giver of
dependent daughter/son/parents/spouse/brother/sister with
Specific ci Disability, as certified by the certifying authority
as a Person with Benchmark Disability as defined under
Section 2(r) of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act,
2016 may be exempted from the routine exercise of
transfer/rotational transfer subject to the administrative
constraints.
(ii) The term 'Specified Disability as defined in the
Schedule to the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act,
2016, covers (i) Locomotor disability including leprosy
cured person, cerebral palsy, dwarfisrn, muscular dystrophy
and Acid attack victims (ii) Blindness (iii) Low vision (iv)
Deaf (v) Hard of hearing (vi) Speech and language
disabilities (vii) Intellectual disability including specific
learning disabilities and autism spectrum disorder (viii)
Mental illness (ix) Disability caused due to: (a)
Neurological conditions such as Multiple sclerosis and
Parkinson's disease (h) Blood disorder Haemophilia,
Thalassemia and Sickle cell-disease and (x) Multiple
disabilities (more than one of the above specified
disabilities) including deaf blindness and any other category
of disabilities as may be notified by the Central
Government.
(iii) The term 'Specified Disability as defined herein is
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) 12454/2026 Page 5 of 14
Signed By:PRAMOD
KUMAR VATS
Signing Date:08.09.2026
15:37:56
applicable as grounds only for the purpose of seeking
exemption from routine transfer/ rotational transfer by a
Government employee, who is a caregiver of dependent
daughter/son/parents/ spouse/brother/sister as stated in Para
I (i) above.”
8. The Tribunal has held that, as the respondent’s child has
benchmark disability in excess of 40%, the respondent would not be
transferred outside Delhi for the period during which the disability
certificate would subsist. The exact reasoning of the Tribunal is
contained in the following paragraphs:
“6. The learned counsel for the applicant has made a strong
case in showing that the applicant's son is suffering from a
specified disability which was initially diagnosed as Autism
Spectrum Disorder by the VIMHANS which is included as one of
the disabilities in the DOPT OM dated 08.10.2018 and later on, it
was diagnosed as the child is suffering from a Specific Learning
Disability by AIIMS which is also covered by the DOPT OM dated
08.10.2018. Therefore, it is immaterial whether the child is
suffering from Autism Spectrum Disorder or Specific Learning
Disability and in any case the disability certificate has been issued
by the competent authority/AIMS to the effect that such a suffering
is greater than 40% and such a certificate is temporary and valid till
24.10.2028.
7. In view of the above, if after the review of the disability
being suffered by the son of the applicant on or after 24.10.2028,
results in such disability being removed or being brought less than
40% then the respondents may review her case. However, on the
basis of the disability certificate in existence and the DOPT OMs
dated 08.10.2018 and 02.02.2024, the relevant paragraphs of which
have been quoted above in para 2, I have no hesitation in staying
the impugned transfer order dated 27.03.2026. Accordingly, the
impugned order dated 27.03.2026 is stayed till 24.10.2028 and the
respondents are directed to adjust the applicant in one of
laboratories at Delhi. It is clarified that this order of the Tribunal
shall be valid only till 24.10.2028 and thereafter, on the basis of the
new disability certificate to be issued by the competent authority,
the respondents may take a fresh decision on the posting of the
applicant.
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) 12454/2026 Page 6 of 14
Signed By:PRAMOD
KUMAR VATS
Signing Date:08.09.2026
15:37:56
9. Ms. Tandon, assailing the impugned judgment, has advanced
the following contentions:
(i) The transfer in question was not a routine or rotational
transfer, to which the aforesaid OMs apply, but was a transfer
on promotion.
8
(ii) The respondent was promoted as CAO
on 25 July 2024.
At that time, she sought retention at Delhi on sympathetic
considerations, citing the condition of her son. The petitioners
extended sympathy to the respondent and allowed her to remain
in Delhi for a period of one year. That period expired on 13
November 2025. The respondent cannot, therefore, now seek
further continuation in Delhi, especially as the decision to grant
her amnesty for a period of one year was not assailed by the
respondent.
(iii) Even if it were to be assumed that the DOPT OMs, on
which the Tribunal has placed reliance, were applicable, they
themselves clarify that the immunity against the transfer
available under the said OMs was subject to organizational
constraints. The petitioners had, in its counter affidavit before
the Tribunal, specifically pleaded organizational constraints as a
reason for not permitting the respondent to continue further in
Delhi. Ms. Tandon has, in this context, drawn our attention to
paras 12 and 13 of the surrejoinder filed by the petitioners
8
Chief Administrative Officer
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) 12454/2026 Page 7 of 14
Signed By:PRAMOD
KUMAR VATS
Signing Date:08.09.2026
15:37:56
before the Tribunal, which read thus:
“12. That it is respectfully submitted that the applicant is
holding the post of Chief Admin Officer which is 2nd
highest post in the hierarchy of Admin Cadre of DRDO
after Joint Director (Admin), which is the highest post of
Admin Cadre. The DRDO is managing with 03 incumbents
against authorisation of 08 posts of Joint Director (Admin).
Further, DRDO is having only 06 Labs in Delhi which are
being suitably tenated by officers by Admin Cadre. There is
no Lab of DRDO in NCR region of Delhi. Further,
retention of applicant, who is holding such a senior level
post of Chief Admin Officer, in Delhi would lead to
redundancy as her services could be gainfully and optimally
utilised at IRDE, Dehradun, which is the nearest station as
compared to other Chief Admin Officers who have been
posted to Bangalore, Hyderabad and Chandigarh.
13. That the applicant joined services in DRDO as
SAO-II and was posted to TBRL, Chandigarh where she
worked from 01.01.2015 to 01.06.2018 (approximately 3.5
years). Thereafter, the applicant was posted to Delhi from
04.06.2018 and is continuing in Delhi till date
(approximately 08 years). She has been posted to IRDE,
Dehradun in public interest considering the administrative
requirements of the Lab and she has been well aware of the
fact that her retention in SSPL, Delhi on the post of Chief
Admin Officer was upto 13.11.2025.”
(iv) The respondent had herself at one point of time sought
permission to join duties outside India. If she was agreeable to
travel outside India, she could not very well oppose a transfer to
Dehradun citing the condition of her child.
10. Having considered Ms Tandon’s submissions, we are not
inclined to differ with the findings of the Tribunal.
11. We are not able to accept the submission of Ms. Tandon that the
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) 12454/2026 Page 8 of 14
Signed By:PRAMOD
KUMAR VATS
Signing Date:08.09.2026
15:37:56
transfer in question was not a routine or rotational transfer but was a
transfer consequential on promotion, as the transfer order itself makes
it clear that it is a plain routine transfer. We may for this purpose
reproduce the transfer order in its entirety thus:
“DOP/AA1/68001/P&T/Admin/X 27 Mar 2026
To,
The Director
DIRL
Chandrayangutta
Lines,
Hyderabad -
500 005
Bharat
The Director
CFEES, Timarpur,
Deliti – 110 054
Bharat
The Director
DFMM
DRDO HQs
New Delhi - 110
011 Bharat
The Director
TBRL
Sector-30
Chandigath -
160 036
Bharat
The Chief Executive
CEMILAC
Marathahalli Colony
Bengaluru – 560 037
Bharat
The Director
IRDE
Raipur Road
Dehradun - 248
008
Bharat
The Director
SSPL
Timarpur
Delhi- 110 054
Bharat
The Director
CEPTAM
Metcalfe House
Delhi - 110 054
Bharat
The Director
GTRE
PB No.9302,
CV Raman
Nagar
Bengaluru - 560
093
Bharat
POSTING / TRANSFER IN PUBLIC INTERESET:
JOINT DIRECTOR (ADMIN) AND CHIEF ADMIN
OFFICER
The decision of the competent authority is hereby conveyed in
respect of the under mentioned officers for their posting/transfer in
public interest: -
SL.
No.
Name &
Designation
(Shri/Smt/Km)
PIN From To
1. AP Ghosh, JD
(Admin)
2003DF1001 DLRL,
Hyderabad
CFEES,
Delhi
2. DS Negi, CAO 2008EF1002 DFMM,
DRDO HQ
TBRL,
Chandigarh
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) 12454/2026 Page 9 of 14
Signed By:PRAMOD
KUMAR VATS
Signing Date:08.09.2026
15:37:56
3. Arun Kumar
Yadav,
CAO
2015DG1002 CEMILAC,
DLRL,
Hyderabad
Bengaluru
4. Chander Prakash,
CAO
2017DG1001 CFEES,
CEMILAC,
Delhi
Hyderabad
5. Dr. Deepti
Bharadwaj
CAO
2015DG1007 SSPL,
IRDE,
Dehradun
Delhi
6. Saurabh Negi, CAO 2003EE1001 CEPTAM,
GTRE,
Bengaluru
2. The above-named officers may be relieved to assume
charge at their respective place of postings by 15th April 2026,
failing which unilateral relieving orders will issued by this HQrs.
Relieving and joining report be forwarded to this HQ (all
concerned).
3. The officers will be entitled for TA/DA, joining time etc. as
per extant rules as the transfers/postings are in public interest.
(Raman Kumar Singh)
Joint Director (Pers-AA1)
For Director of Personnel
DRDO HQrs”
Delhi
The promotion of the respondent as CAO took place in 2024,
12.
more than two years prior to the passing of the afore-extracted transfer
order on 27 March 2026. The transfer order dated 27 March 2026 was
not, therefore, a transfer consequent on promotion. Consequent on
promotion, the respondent had been transferred to outside Delhi in
2024 and, on her request, had been permitted to remain in Delhi for a
period of one year. As such, the submission that the transfer dated 27
March 2026 was a transfer consequent on promotion and that,
therefore, the OMs of the DOPT would not apply, cannot be accepted.
13. We are also not impressed with the submission that the
respondent having been allowed to remain in Delhi for a period of one
year, and having not challenged that decision, cannot seek any further
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) 12454/2026 Page 10 of 14
Signed By:PRAMOD
KUMAR VATS
Signing Date:08.09.2026
15:37:56
right to remain in Delhi. The DOPT OMs, on which the Tribunal has
placed reliance, immunised a care giver of a dependent child,
suffering from a benchmark disability, from routine or rotational
transfer. That immunity would, therefore, as the Tribunal has rightly
held, continue for the period during which the disability certificate
remains in force. The Tribunal has, very fairly, granted relief to the
respondent only till the time when the disability certificate remains
alive and has allowed the petitioners to consider transferring the
respondent after the life of the disability certificate subject, of course,
to any further certificate issued in that regard.
14. In so far as the applicability of the DOPT OMs is concerned,
they are clear and categorical. Ms. Tandon has pointed out that the
immunity from transfer under the said OMs is subject to
organisational constraints. However, the onus to establish
organisational constraints would be on the petitioners. The order of
transfer by itself does not cite any organisational constraints. We are,
therefore, in agreement with Mr. Goel’s reliance on the judgments of
the Supreme Court in Commissioner of Police, Bombay v.
9
Gordhandas Bhanji and Mohinder Singh Gill v. The Chief Election
10
Commissioner, New Delhi
, which hold that an order has to stand or
fall based on the reasons contained therein and cannot be improved by
way of averments on affidavit in Court. Accepting the submissions of
Ms. Tandon would require us to act contrary to the declaration of the
law in that regard as contained in these decisions. The transfer order
9
1951 SCC 1088
10
(1978) 1 SCC 405
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) 12454/2026 Page 11 of 14
Signed By:PRAMOD
KUMAR VATS
Signing Date:08.09.2026
15:37:56
does not purport to have been issued for organisational constraints. It
merely states that it was in public interest. We cannot, therefore,
accept the averments in the affidavit filed by the petitioners – which,
we may note, was not even in counter but by way of a surrejoinder
before the Tribunal as seeking to embellish the order of transfer or
improve its contents.
15. Be that as it may, we have also seen paras 12 and 13 of the
surrejoinder affidavit filed by the petitioners before the Tribunal.
There is no averment, in the said paras, to the effect that no vacancy of
CAO in any of the labs of the petitioners was available in Delhi in
which the respondent could be accommodated.
16. As such, we do not even find a case of organisational
constraints to be made out on the basis of the averments contained in
the sur rejoinder affidavit filed by the petitioners before the Tribunal.
We have to be mindful, in a case such as this, that we are
17.
dealing with the applicability of the RPWD Act. The Supreme Court
has repeatedly emphasized in Vikash Kumar v. Union Public Service
11
Commission that the principle of reasonable accommodation which,
permeates the RPWD Act and has exhorted on courts to ensure that,
while they apply the principles and the provisions of the RPWD Act,
the goal of reasonable accommodation is always borne in mind. The
immunity from transfer available to parents of a dependent child
suffering from benchmark disability, as provided in the aforenoted
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) 12454/2026 Page 12 of 14
Signed By:PRAMOD
KUMAR VATS
Signing Date:08.09.2026
15:37:56
DOPT OMs is clearly a step-in aid of reasonable accommodation as
envisaged by Section 2(y) of the RPWD Act. It has, therefore, to be
interpreted expansively and given full scope and effect. Any
restrictive interpretation by us would be doing violence not only to the
provisions of the RPWD Act but also to the philosophy underling the
judgments of the Supreme Court in Vikash Kumar , as well as Rajiv
12
Raturi v. Union of India and Recruitment of Visually Impaired in
13
Judicial Services
.
18. The final submission of Ms. Tandon is that the respondent had
14
applied for enlistment in the offices of the ICCR
abroad.
19. Mr. Goel submits that, in the countries abroad where these
centres are available, there are extensive facilities where the child of
the respondent could have been taken care of.
20. Be that as it may, we are of the opinion that this consideration
cannot militate against the respondent’s right to the benefit of the
DOPT OMs ( supra ).
21. We, therefore, do not find this to be a case in which we should
exercise our extraordinary certiorari jurisdiction, vested in us by
Article 226 of the Constitution of India, and interfere with the
judgment of the Tribunal.
11
(2021) 5 SCC 370
12
(2024) 16 SCC 654
13
Re: 2025 SCC OnLine SC 481
14
Indian Council for Cultural Relations
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) 12454/2026 Page 13 of 14
Signed By:PRAMOD
KUMAR VATS
Signing Date:08.09.2026
15:37:56
22. We, therefore, decline to entertain this writ petition which is
accordingly dismissed in limine .
C. HARI SHANKAR, J.
VINOD KUMAR, J.
SEPTEMBER 3, 2026/ dd
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) 12454/2026 Page 14 of 14
Signed By:PRAMOD
KUMAR VATS
Signing Date:08.09.2026
15:37:56