Employer must reconsider transfer exemption for caregiver of disabled dependent based on DOPT O.M.

The applicant, Md. Nazrul Islam, was appointed as a Postal Assistant on February 27, 2003.

His younger son suffers from Autism Spectrum Disorder with 80% permanent brain disability.

On February 17, 2025, the applicant submitted a representation to Respondent No. 4, seeking transfer and posting to the Nagaon Town Area based on his son's condition and provided an 'Option Form' with three preferred posting locations: Nagaon Girls College SO, Itachali SO, and Haibargaon S.O.

Without considering this representation, Respondent No. 4, vide Order dated May 2, 2025, transferred the applicant from Nagaon H.O. to Moirabari S.O. as part of a rotational transfer.

The applicant submitted another representation on May 8, 2025, detailing his son's condition and the implications of the transfer.

This subsequent representation was rejected by the respondents via Order dated May 14, 2025.

The respondents argued that Moirabari SO is 28 KMs from the applicant's stated residence, while Nagaon Girls College SO is 22 KMs, and that the applicant's service book indicated adequate adult family members, implying the DoPT OM dated February 2, 2024, was not applicable.

Whether the transfer orders dated May 2, 2025, and May 14, 2025, issued by the Superintendent of Post Offices, Nagaon Division, should be set aside for violating guidelines regarding exemption from routine transfer/rotational transfer for government employees who are caregivers of dependents with disabilities.

Whether the respondents failed to properly consider the applicant's representation regarding his son's disability and the applicability of DoPT OMs dated October 8, 2018, and February 2, 2024.

The court primarily applied the Office Memorandum (OM) No. 36035/44/2023-Estt(Res-II) dated February 2, 2024, issued by the Department of Personnel and Training (DoPT), which provides for exemption from routine exercise of transfer/rotational transfer for government employees who are caregivers of dependents with "Specified Disability".

The OM defines "Specified Disability" under the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016, to include "autism spectrum disorder".

This exemption is subject to administrative constraints.

The court found that the applicant is the primary caregiver for his younger son, who has an 80% permanent disability due to Autism Spectrum Disorder, which falls under the definition of "Specified Disability" in the DoPT OM dated February 2, 2024.

The applicant had submitted representations outlining his circumstances and preferred posting locations, but these were not adequately considered by the respondents.

The court noted that the respondents failed to demonstrate compelling administrative reasons for the transfer, especially when a vacant post was reportedly available at Nagaon Girls College S.O., a preferred location of the applicant.

The court determined that the respondents' rejection of the representations was a "cryptic order" that did not account for the applicant's mitigating circumstances or the applicable DoPT OM.

The argument by the respondents regarding the presence of other adult family members did not negate the applicant's role as the "main caregiver".

The respondent authorities were directed to reconsider the applicant's representation dated May 8, 2025, and issue a reasoned and speaking order within six weeks, taking into account the applicant's son's disability and the applicability of the DoPT OM dated February 2, 2024.

Until such reconsideration, the respondents were directed to allow the applicant to continue working at Nagaon HPO, Nagaon, if not already relieved.