Disability-based transfer requests require reasoned consideration under the RPwD Act, not rejection on extraneous grounds.

The applicant, an Assistant Director appointed under the Persons with Benchmark Disabilities (PwBD) quota, has a certified 57% permanent locomotor disability and joined the Regional Fertilizer Control Laboratory (RFCL), Kalyani, in November 2023.

He sought transfer to RFCL Chennai, closer to his home state, and relied on an RTI response stating that an Assistant Director post was vacant there.

In an earlier application, the Tribunal directed the respondents to consider his representation and issue a reasoned order; the respondents subsequently rejected the request, citing administrative constraints, probation status, and pending show-cause/warning proceedings.

The applicant challenged both the rejection communication dated 13 March 2026 and the speaking order dated 10 June 2026.

Whether the respondents’ rejection of the applicant’s transfer request, in light of his disability and the asserted vacancy at RFCL Chennai, was consistent with the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 and applicable DoPT instructions.

Whether the Tribunal should set aside the rejection orders and direct fresh, reasoned consideration of the transfer request.

Section 20 of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016, concerning non-discrimination in employment, and the concept of “reasonable accommodation” were central to the Tribunal’s reasoning; the Tribunal also referred to Section 2(y) of the Act.

Relying on Vikash Kumar v. UPSC, (2021) 5 SCC 370, the Tribunal noted that reasonable accommodation is a requirement of substantive equality and non-discrimination under the Act.

It also referred to applicable DoPT instructions, including the O.M.s identified by the applicant and the O.M. dated 13 March 2022 mentioned in the operative direction.

The Tribunal found that the speaking order relied primarily on the applicant’s probationary status and pending show-cause/warning proceedings, without explaining why the asserted vacancy at RFCL Chennai—or a suitable post at another location nearer his hometown—could not be considered in light of his disability-related request.

In the Tribunal’s view, rejecting the request on those grounds without addressing the available-post question was inconsistent with the spirit of the RPwD Act and the requirement to consider reasonable accommodation.

The Tribunal therefore required reconsideration, but did not itself direct that the applicant be transferred to Chennai.

It directed Respondent Nos. 1 and 3 to reconsider the transfer request afresh under Sections 2(y) and 20 of the RPwD Act, 2016, and applicable DoPT instructions, taking account of vacant posts near the applicant’s hometown. The respondents must communicate a reasoned and speaking order within four weeks of receiving a certified copy of the judgment.

The application was disposed of without an order as to costs.