Authorities must reconsider compassionate transfer requests in light of humanitarian circumstances, spouse-posting policy, and available vacancies.

The applicant, an Indian Air Force employee, was initially posted at AFS Bidar and later took up the post of CMTD at AFS Tambaram in December 2023.

He sought transfer back to Bidar, relying on his daughter’s recurring seizures and need for medical care, his wife’s employment as a State Government teacher near Bidar, and his aged parents’ residence in the district.

The respondents recommended his requests subject to replacement but declined them because of a shortage of CMTD personnel and the unavailability of a replacement.

The applicant challenged the communication dated 3 July 2025 refusing his request.

The Tribunal heard the parties and disposed of the OA by directing the respondents to reconsider whether he could be accommodated at AFS Bidar.

1. Whether the respondents’ refusal to transfer the applicant to AFS Bidar for want of replacement required reconsideration in light of his family and humanitarian circumstances.

2. Whether the respondents were required to consider the applicant’s request under the DoPT policy concerning spouses employed by the Central and State Governments.

Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 provides the basis for an application to the Tribunal.

The Tribunal referred to Clause B(vii) of the DoPT Office Memorandum dated 14 November 2022, under which a Central Government employee may apply to be posted at the station where their spouse is employed by a State Government; the competent authority may post the employee there, or, if no post is available at that station, elsewhere in that State.

The applicant also relied on Lakshmi Bhavya Tanneeru v. Union of India and State of West Bengal v. Mrs. Vipasha Parul, but the Tribunal did not determine the OA by applying those decisions.

The Tribunal considered the applicant’s wife’s State Government employment, the significant medical needs of his daughter, and the possibility that a vacancy might have arisen since the OA was filed.

It also noted the DoPT provision permitting consideration of a Central Government employee’s posting near a State-employed spouse.

Rather than direct a transfer or decide that the refusal was unlawful, the Tribunal ordered the respondents to reconsider whether accommodation at AFS Bidar was possible, taking account of the case’s facts and humanitarian considerations.

It directed the respondents to consider whether the applicant could be accommodated at AFS Bidar and to issue a reasoned and speaking order within eight weeks of receiving a certified copy of the order.

Pending miscellaneous applications were also disposed of, with no order as to costs.