Madras HC Upholds Chennai Posting For Salt Corp Employee, Citing Differently-Abled Daughter’s Care Needs

The Corporation transferred the respondent from its Chennai Corporate Office to its Valinokkam Project Office in Ramanathapuram District.

The respondent challenged the transfer by writ petition, citing the special care required by his differently abled daughter and the arrangements for her treatment in Chennai, where his wife was also employed.

The Single Judge allowed the petition and directed the Corporation to accommodate him at a suitable posting in Chennai.

The Corporation appealed, arguing, among other things, that the petition had been decided without an opportunity to file a counter-affidavit and that the transfer responded to administrative needs.

It also said the respondent had joined at Valinokkam and later taken successive spells of leave, requiring alternative staffing arrangements.

Transfer is an incidence of service, and an employer may transfer employees in light of administrative requirements.

That authority must nevertheless be considered alongside the difficulties an employee may face in caring for a differently abled child.

The Court also considered the beneficial object of G.O.Ms.No.107, dated 3 September 2020, while noting the Corporation’s contention that it had not adopted the Government Order; it did not treat the Order as an adopted binding rule for the Corporation.

The Court further held that the absence of a detailed counter-affidavit, by itself, did not require interference where the matter had been taken up for disposal by consent and the relevant personal circumstances were before the Court.

The Court found that the Corporation’s representative had appeared before the Single Judge and that the writ petition had been taken up for disposal by consent; the lack of a detailed counter-affidavit therefore did not, by itself, establish grounds to set aside the order.

The respondent had produced material showing the special care required by his daughter, and the Single Judge’s direction was limited to a suitable posting within Chennai rather than an absolute exemption from transfer.

The Corporation did not establish a compelling administrative necessity or show that complying with the direction would seriously affect its administration.

The respondent’s joining at Valinokkam and subsequent leave, without more, did not alter that assessment.

It dismissed the writ appeal and confirmed the Single Judge’s direction to accommodate the respondent at a suitable place of posting within Chennai.

No costs were ordered, and the connected miscellaneous petition was closed.