Caregiver status confers no absolute transfer right but warrants preferential consideration in the next transfer cycle.

The applicant, a Drug Inspector in the Central Drugs Standard Control Organisation (CDSCO), was transferred from Krishnapatnam Port to the Jammu Sub-Zone by order dated 1 May 2025.

He challenged the transfer and the rejection of his request for exemption from routine transfer, contending that his aged mother suffered from Alzheimer’s disease and benchmark disability and that he was her sole caregiver.

The applicant had earlier approached the Chief Commissioner for Persons with Disabilities (CCPwD), who, by order dated 8 May 2024, recommended that his request be considered with an open and empathetic mind and directed consideration of an Equal Opportunity Policy under the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Rules, 2017.

After the applicant filed O.A. No. 1888/2025, the Tribunal directed the respondents to grant him a personal hearing and pass a speaking order.

He was heard on 30 June 2025, but his request was again rejected on 2 July 2025, primarily because of administrative exigencies, closure of the Krishnapatnam Port office and manpower requirements at Jammu.

The applicant had already joined and was serving at Jammu when the present application was considered.

Whether the applicant was entitled to have the transfer order to Jammu quashed or to receive an immediate posting at Chennai or a nearby station on account of his mother’s disability and his asserted status as her sole caregiver?

Whether the respondents had meaningfully and lawfully considered the applicant’s request for exemption from routine transfer, having regard to the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016, the applicable Government instructions, the CCPwD’s recommendations and the applicant’s personal circumstances?

Whether the applicant’s case required preferential and sympathetic consideration in the next transfer cycle, having regard to his mother’s medical condition, caregiving responsibilities, seniority, availability of vacancies and administrative requirements?

Transfer is ordinarily an incident of service, and an employee has no vested right to remain posted at, or seek posting to, a particular station; judicial review is limited to cases involving mala fides, violation of statutory provisions or patent arbitrariness.

The Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 and the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Rules, 2017, including the principle of reasonable accommodation and the requirement of an Equal Opportunity Policy under Rule 8, require relevant disability-related circumstances to be considered.

The DoP&T Office Memoranda dated 2 July 2015, 8 October 2018 and 2 February 2024, together with the applicable transfer policy, provide for consideration of caregivers of dependants with benchmark disabilities but do not create an absolute or indefeasible right to exemption from transfer.

The duties of Drug Inspectors under Rules 51 and 52 of the Drugs and Cosmetics Rules, 1945 justify rotational postings and consideration of administrative exigencies.

Accordingly, the competent authority must balance the employee’s compassionate and disability-related circumstances against the requirements of administration and must not reject the request mechanically.

The Tribunal accepted that the applicant’s mother’s certified disability, advanced age, progressive Alzheimer’s disease and the applicant’s caregiving responsibilities were relevant circumstances requiring meaningful consideration.

However, these circumstances did not confer an automatic right to exemption from transfer or an immediate posting at Chennai.

Since the applicant had already joined at Jammu and the respondents had relied on administrative requirements, including manpower needs and the rotational nature of Drug Inspector duties, the Tribunal declined to substitute its judgment for that of the competent authority or quash the transfer.

At the same time, the Tribunal held that the applicant’s subsequent request for a proximate posting could not be disregarded merely because he had joined Jammu.

The CCPwD’s recommendation, the mother’s continuing medical condition, the applicant’s period away from Chennai, his seniority, the alleged differential treatment of other officers and the availability of vacancies were all relevant matters for consideration.

The respondents were therefore required to give the applicant due preference and sympathetic consideration in the next transfer exercise, while retaining discretion based on vacancy position and overriding administrative exigencies.

The Original Application was disposed of with a direction to the respondents to consider the applicant, with due preference and sympathetic consideration, for posting at Chennai or a nearby station in the next transfer cycle.

Such consideration must account for his mother’s disability and medical condition, his caregiving responsibilities, seniority, the applicable transfer policy, available vacancies, the CCPwD’s observations and the Department’s administrative requirements.

The direction did not create an absolute right to a Chennai posting, and there was no order as to costs.