Caregiver transfer exemptions create no absolute right to retention and remain subject to administrative exigencies.

The applicant, an Assistant Accounts Officer in the Defence Accounts Department, had served in Kolkata for over 17 years when he was transferred to Gopalpur by an order dated 3 March 2026.

In an earlier application, the Tribunal directed the respondents to consider a representation supported by a medical certificate and, pending that consideration, not to give effect to the transfer and release orders.

The applicant then submitted a disability certificate concerning his 82-year-old mother, recording 75% mental illness/dementia and 52% chronic neurological disability, including Parkinson’s disease, and sought exemption from transfer on compassionate medical grounds.

The Dy. CGDA rejected his representation on 15 April 2026, leading to the present application.

The applicant also alleged unequal treatment, relying on exemptions granted to other officials.

Whether the applicant was entitled to exemption from transfer or retention in Kolkata under the applicable disability-caregiver guidelines, having regard to his mother’s medical condition and the department’s administrative requirements

Whether the transfer decision was arbitrary or discriminatory because other officials had reportedly received transfer exemptions on medical or family grounds

The Tribunal applied the principle that transfer is an incident of service and ordinarily should not be interfered with unless it violates statutory rules, is vitiated by explicit mala fides, or is made by an incompetent authority, relying on Shilpi Bose v. State of Bihar and Union of India v. S.L. Abbas.

It considered the DoPT Office Memorandum dated 8 October 2018 concerning accommodation for caregivers of persons with benchmark disabilities, but held that such guidance remains subject to administrative feasibility and public-service exigencies and does not confer an absolute right to remain at a particular station.

It also applied the principle that Article 14 does not permit a claim to “negative equality”—that is, an entitlement to the same treatment merely because another employee received an exemption on different facts—relying on Sukhendu Biswas v. Union of India, O.A. No. 350/00643/2026.

The Tribunal found that the competent Placement Board had considered the applicant’s case and disability certificate in compliance with the earlier order, and had issued a speaking order after taking account of his having spent over 75% of his career in Kolkata.

It accepted the respondents’ position that the applicant’s prolonged service in Kolkata, staffing requirements at other stations, and administrative feasibility were relevant to the transfer decision.

The Tribunal also found that the other officials’ circumstances were materially distinct, including children with significant disabilities requiring local therapy or parents undergoing cancer treatment; their exemptions therefore did not establish discriminatory treatment of the applicant.

In light of the limited scope for judicial interference with transfer decisions and the absence of a demonstrated infirmity in the decision-making process, the Tribunal declined to interfere.

It nevertheless granted the applicant liberty, after joining his new place of posting, to seek a posting at a station near Kolkata; if he made such a representation, the competent authority was directed to consider it sympathetically.