Employees acting as caregivers for disabled children are entitled to consideration for transfer exemption under government guidelines.

The applicant, a Social Security Officer (SSO) at ESIC S.R.O. Nand Nagri, Delhi, challenged Transfer Order No. 54 of 2026 dated 10.04.2026, which directed his transfer to Durgapur, West Bengal.

The applicant has a son with 75% mental disability/retardation.

A previous Transfer Committee on 28.02.2024 had recommended his posting within Delhi on compassionate grounds due to his status as a caregiver.

Despite this, he was transferred approximately 1,300 km away within two years of his last posting.

The applicant submitted a representation dated 13.04.2026 seeking exemption from the transfer based on government guidelines regarding caregivers of disabled children, which remained pending.

1. Whether the transfer of the applicant, who is a primary caregiver for a child with 75% mental disability, violates the established government policies and OMs regarding the exemption of such employees from routine transfers.

2. Whether the respondents are required to consider the applicant's pending representation in light of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016, and relevant DoPT Office Memorandums.

The court relied on the ESIC Transfer Policy dated 18.12.2024 and DoPT Office Memorandums (OMs) dated 08.10.2018 and 02.02.2024, which provide for the exemption of employees who are caregivers of disabled children from routine transfers.

It referenced the legal principles under the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016.

It cited the Supreme Court decision in Union of India v. S.L. Abbas, which mandates that authorities must consider government guidelines when ordering transfers.

The court also noted several Tribunal precedents, including Sugan Lal Meena v. ESIC and Shyam Sunder Kaushik v. ESIC, where similar directions were issued to decide representations before giving effect to transfers.

The Tribunal observed that the applicant’s son suffers from a significant mental disability (75%) and that the applicant is the primary caregiver.

The court noted that the respondents' own Transfer Committee had previously recognized these compassionate grounds in early 2024 to keep the applicant in Delhi.

During proceedings, the respondents conceded that the circumstances were "exceptional" and "peculiar," agreeing that the applicant’s representation should be considered under the current policy frameworks and that he would not be relieved until such a decision was made.

The Tribunal determined that rather than adjudicating the merits of the transfer at this stage, it was appropriate to mandate the competent authority to perform its administrative duty by passing a reasoned order on the applicant's pending representation while providing interim protection.

The Tribunal held that until the representation is decided, no coercive steps shall be taken against the applicant, and he shall not be relieved from his current place of posting.

The OA was disposed of with no order as to costs.