Failure to consider caregiver status for spouses with specified disabilities under policy renders transfer orders arbitrary.

The applicant, a Sub Divisional Engineer (SDE) at BSNL, Ambala, challenged a transfer order dated 07.06.2024 (and subsequent relieving order) transferring him from the Haryana Circle to the Himachal Pradesh (HP) Circle

The applicant had been posted in Haryana since 2003 (approximately 22 years)

Although the transfer was initially based on an "own-request" application where the applicant listed HP as an option, he subsequently submitted a representation on 11.06.2024 seeking a modification to the Punjab Circle

The grounds for this request were that his wife suffers from Primary Progressive Multiple Sclerosis (70% disability) and requires continuous treatment at PGI Chandigarh

The applicant asserted he is the sole caregiver as his children reside abroad and his wife is employed by LIC in Ambala (a "couple-case" scenario)

Despite the representation and policy amendments protecting caregivers, the respondents relieved him on 15.07.2025

1. Whether the impugned transfer and relieving orders violated the BSNL Employees Transfer Policy, specifically regarding exemptions for caregivers of persons with "Specified Disabilities"

2. Whether the respondents' failure to decide the applicant's representation before relieving him constituted a non-application of mind and an arbitrary exercise of power

The Tribunal primarily applied the BSNL Employees Transfer Policy (2008), specifically Clause 6(g) regarding the posting of husband and wife at the same station

The amendment dated 14.03.2024 to Clause 6(i) provides that an employee who is a caregiver of a spouse with "Specified Disabilities" (as defined in the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016) may be exempted from routine or rotational transfers

Multiple Sclerosis is explicitly listed as a chronic neurological condition under these "Specified Disabilities"

The court also noted the standard of judicial review in transfer matters established by the Supreme Court in Shilpi Bose v. State of Bihar and State of M.P. v. S.S. Kourav, which limits interference unless the transfer is arbitrary, mala fide, or violates statutory policy

The Tribunal found that the applicant’s wife’s condition (Multiple Sclerosis with 70% disability) squarely falls within the "Specified Disabilities" category under the amended 2024 BSNL policy

While the respondents argued the transfer was "own-request" and based on a 22-year "long stay," the Tribunal observed that once a caregiver qualifies for exemption under the policy, the relevance of a "long stay" is diminished

The court highlighted that the respondents failed to decide the applicant’s detailed representation regarding his wife's worsening medical status and his role as primary caregiver

This failure to address the representation before issuing the relieving order indicated a non-application of mind

Furthermore, the respondents did not demonstrate any specific administrative exigency that overrode the policy protections afforded to caregivers of disabled dependents

The Tribunal quashed the transfer orders (Annexure A-1 and A-2) and the relieving order (Annexure A-3) as they pertained to the applicant

The respondents were directed to reconsider the applicant’s representation dated 11.06.2024 afresh in light of his spouse's medical condition and the caregiver provisions of the Transfer Policy

The court ordered that the applicant be allowed to continue at Ambala until a reasoned and speaking order is passed regarding his request for a suitable posting, such as in the Punjab Circle, subject to administrative feasibility