Compassionate Transfer of Differently Abled Employee Cannot Be Arbitrarily Rescinded Without Due Consideration of Subsisting Medical Grounds

The applicant, a 53-year-old differently-abled Assistant Director suffering from spinal ailments, was previously transferred to the Directorate General of Health Services (DGHS) on compassionate grounds via an order dated 04.01.2024 to facilitate medical treatment

On 22.03.2026, the applicant filed an RTI application regarding his non-promotion; subsequently, on 27.03.2026, the respondents issued an order transferring him from DGHS to the Ministry of Earth Science

The applicant challenged this transfer, alleging it was mala fide, discriminatory, and ignored his continued need for cashless medical facilities at DGHS

The respondents argued that transfer is an incident of service within the same city and the applicant had already been relieved

1. Whether the impugned transfer order dated 27.03.2026 was arbitrary, discriminatory, or vitiated by mala fides given the applicant’s physical disability and prior compassionate posting

2. Whether the respondents were required to consider the subsistence of the compassionate grounds before revisiting his placement

The Tribunal applied the principles of administrative fairness and non-arbitrariness in service law.

While acknowledging that an employee has no vested right to a specific posting and that transfer is a condition of service, the court emphasized that when a transfer is originally granted on compassionate grounds for a differently-abled employee, any subsequent relocation must be backed by cogent reasons

The court also considered the principle of non-discrimination under Article 14, noting that similarly situated individuals (Respondent No. 2) were treated differently regarding their postings

The Tribunal found a prima facie case of differential treatment, noting that while the applicant was ordered to be relieved immediately, other promoted employees were allowed to remain until the assumption of new charges

The court observed that the applicant’s medical condition and his reliance on DGHS's cashless treatment were factors previously accepted by the respondents

Since these compassionate circumstances still subsist, the Tribunal reasoned that the authorities should have provided cogent reasons for "falling out of grace" and revisiting the earlier compassionate consideration

The court noted that the applicant’s pending representation regarding these grievances had not been addressed by the respondents

The court directed the competent authority to take a fresh decision on the applicant's pending representation within four weeks, specifically considering the subsistence of compassionate grounds and the apparent differential treatment

The OA was disposed of with these directions, maintaining the status quo on the pending representation during the decision period