Caregiver exemption from routine transfer is discretionary, not an absolute right, where alternative care exists.

The applicant, a Senior Statistical Officer posted at the National Statistical Office, Varanasi, had been serving there since 2015 and was promoted while continuing at the same station.

His minor son was diagnosed with Autism Spectrum Disorder, and the applicant claimed that the child required continuing treatment and therapy at Varanasi and that he was the sole caregiver.

By order dated 17 April 2026, the applicant was transferred from Varanasi to Madurai.

He submitted a representation seeking retention at Varanasi, but, before it was decided, approached the Tribunal in O.A. No. 587 of 2026.

That application was disposed of on 27 May 2026 with a direction to decide his representation in light of the child’s medical condition and the applicable policy.

Pursuant thereto, the respondents modified the transfer from Madurai to Rewa, Madhya Pradesh, by order dated 2 June 2026, followed by a further order dated 23 June 2026 and relieving order dated 24 June 2026.

The applicant challenged these orders, relying principally on the DoPT Office Memorandum dated 8 October 2018 concerning exemption from routine or rotational transfer for caregivers of children suffering from specified disabilities.

Whether the orders dated 2 June, 23 June and 24 June 2026, transferring the applicant from Varanasi to Rewa and relieving him, were liable to be quashed as contrary to the DoPT O.M. dated 8 October 2018 and the applicant’s circumstances as caregiver of a child with Autism Spectrum Disorder.

Whether the applicant was entitled to exemption from routine or rotational transfer on the ground that he was the sole caregiver of his disabled child.

Whether the transfer was vitiated by mala fides or otherwise warranted judicial interference.

The application was filed under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985.

The Tribunal applied the principle that transfer is ordinarily an administrative matter and judicial interference is warranted only where the order is shown to be contrary to law, mala fide, or unsupported by the applicable policy.

The DoPT O.M. dated 8 October 2018 provides that employees who are caregivers of children suffering from specified diseases, including Autism Spectrum Disorder, may be exempted from routine or rotational transfer, subject to administrative constraints.

The Tribunal held that this O.M. is a beneficial guideline and not an absolute or enforceable right to remain posted at a particular station indefinitely; it must be read with other transfer policies and tenure requirements, including the O.M. dated 3 October 2023 prescribing a maximum tenure of seven years.

The Tribunal distinguished Pradeep Kumar Shrivastava v. CBI, O.A. Nos. 2233 and 2236 of 2017, and Neeraj Chaturvedi v. Central Bank of India, Writ-A No. 3793 of 2022, which recognised protection where the employee was the sole caregiver of a disabled family member.

It also distinguished Dr. Narendra Kumar v. CSIR, O.A. No. 808 of 2024, on its facts.

The Tribunal accepted that the applicant’s son suffered from Autism Spectrum Disorder, a condition covered by the O.M. dated 8 October 2018, but held that the applicant had not established that he was the sole caregiver.

His wife was a qualified, employed teacher posted at Ghazipur and was available to care for the child.

Further, the applicant had consistently disclosed his residence as Ghazipur, not Varanasi, and the respondents had already accommodated his request to the extent of modifying the transfer from distant Madurai to comparatively nearer Rewa.

The applicant’s continued posting at Varanasi for more than ten years also exceeded the seven-year tenure contemplated by the applicable transfer policy, giving the respondents an administrative and public-interest basis for transfer.

The Tribunal reasoned that treating the 2018 O.M. as an absolute exemption would effectively permit the applicant to remain at Varanasi throughout his service, contrary to the purpose of tenure-based rotational transfers.

No mala fides were pleaded with sufficient particulars or established, and the modification from Madurai to Rewa further weakened that allegation.

It held that the O.M. dated 8 October 2018 did not confer an absolute right to remain posted at Varanasi and that the applicant failed to prove that he was the child’s sole caregiver.

The transfer and relieving orders were therefore not legally unsustainable, mala fide, or contrary to the applicable policy.

The Original Application was dismissed, all connected miscellaneous applications were disposed of, and there was no order as to costs.