Financial independence of a disabled relative does not negate dependency for seeking caregiver exemption from transfer.

The Applicant, a Senior General Manager at BSNL, challenged a transfer order and a subsequent speaking order dated 05.12.2025

The Applicant is the sole caregiver for his younger brother, who suffers from a 75% "benchmark disability" due to chronic psychosis

Following the death of his mother in 2019, who was the primary caregiver, the Applicant became responsible for his brother’s daily needs

In a previous round of litigation (O.A. No. 3301/2025), the Tribunal directed the Respondents to consider the Applicant’s representation for exemption under the BSNL Transfer Policy

The Respondents subsequently modified the Applicant's transfer from Dhenkanal to Bhubaneswar but rejected his request for a posting near Gurugram

The Respondents argued that because the brother receives a disability pension of ₹30,000, he is not "financially dependent" under CGHS norms and thus does not qualify for the exemption

1. Whether the Applicant is entitled to exemption from routine/rotational transfer under Clause 6(i) of the BSNL Transfer Policy as a sole caregiver of a sibling with a benchmark disability

2. Whether the term "dependent" in the context of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 and associated transfer policies is limited to financial dependency or includes physical and emotional dependency

Clause 6(i) of the BSNL Transfer Policy (as amended on 14.03.2024)

DoP&T Office Memorandum dated 02.02.2024, both of which provide for the exemption of employees who are caregivers of dependents with "Specified Disabilities" from routine transfers

Rights of Persons with Disabilities (RPwD) Act, 2016, specifically Section 2(r) regarding benchmark disabilities

The Court also relied on the principle established by the Delhi High Court in Shambu Nath Rai v. Union of India, which held that caregiver exemptions are intended for the benefit of the disabled person, not the employee, and should be accorded primacy

The Court invoked the "Right to Life" under Article 21 of the Constitution of India

The Tribunal found that the Respondents adopted an overly narrow and "illogical" interpretation of the word "dependent"

It held that in cases involving severe mental illness (chronic psychosis), dependency cannot be restricted to financial criteria like the ₹9,000 income limit used in CGHS norms; rather, it encompasses physical and emotional necessity

The Tribunal noted that the brother requires constant supervision and has an established medical ecosystem in Gurugram, which would be disrupted by a move to Odisha

The court characterized the relationship as a "Lakshman dependent upon Ram" scenario, necessitating a lens of empathy under the RPwD Act rather than strict financial accounting

The Tribunal further observed that the Applicant has only 3.5 years of service remaining, making the refusal to accommodate him at one of his seven suggested choice stations near Gurugram arbitrary and a failure of the Respondents to meaningfully follow the Tribunal's previous directions

The Tribunal held that the balance of convenience lay with the Applicant due to his status as the sole caregiver and his proximity to retirement

The Respondents were directed to grant the Applicant the benefit of Clause 6(i) of the BSNL Transfer Policy and consider posting him at one of his seven preferred locations within three months

No order was made as to costs