Primary caregivers of dependants with benchmark disabilities cannot be routinely transferred absent compelling administrative constraints.

The applicant, an Office Superintendent in the Central Ground Water Board (CGWB), had initially been transferred to Bhubaneswar on compassionate grounds to care for his aged parents and his dependent sister, who is 100% blind.

He had served at Bhubaneswar since 2000 and was posted with the South Eastern Region, Bhubaneswar, when the respondents, by order dated 22 June 2022, transferred him to the Regional Geophysical Institute, Raipur, and posted Respondent No. 6 in his place.

The applicant challenged the transfer, relying on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 and DoPT Office Memoranda dated 8 October 2018 and 2 February 2024, which provide protection from routine or rotational transfer to caregivers of dependants with specified disabilities.

His representation was rejected on 27 July 2022.

During related proceedings concerning Respondent No. 6, that respondent’s transfer and posting to Bhubaneswar were cancelled on the ground of disability.

Whether the transfer of the applicant, who was the caregiver of his 100% blind dependent sister, violated the protection contemplated under the RPwD Act, 2016 and the DoPT Office Memoranda exempting such caregivers from routine or rotational transfer.

Whether the respondents had demonstrated sufficient administrative constraints or public-interest reasons to justify displacing the applicant from Bhubaneswar despite his caregiver status.

Whether the transfer order and the rejection of the applicant’s representation were arbitrary and unsupported by adequate consideration of the applicable beneficial policy.

The Tribunal applied the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016, particularly the definition of “person with benchmark disability” under Section 2(r), under which blindness exceeding 40% constitutes benchmark disability.

It relied on DoPT OM No. 42011/3/2014-Estt.(Res.) dated 8 October 2018 and OM No. 36035/44/2023-Estt.(Res-II) dated 2 February 2024, which provide that a Government employee caring for a dependent daughter, son, parent, spouse, brother or sister with a specified disability may be exempted from routine or rotational transfer, subject to genuine administrative constraints.

The Tribunal further applied the principle that administrative discretion must be exercised reasonably, fairly and consistently with applicable rules and guidelines, and that “administrative exigency” cannot be used as a device for arbitrary or vindictive action.

It relied on Neeraj Chaturvedi v. Central Bank of India, 2022 SCC OnLine All 399, and other coordinate Bench and High Court decisions emphasizing that beneficial and compassionate transfer policies must be implemented in letter and spirit and that the interests of persons with disabilities ordinarily deserve primacy.

The Tribunal found that the respondents themselves accepted that the applicant had originally been posted to Bhubaneswar on compassionate grounds to care for his 100% blind sister and aged parents.

Blindness is expressly a specified disability under the RPwD framework, and the applicant therefore fell within the category of caregivers eligible for protection from routine or rotational transfer.

Although the respondents relied on administrative requirements at Raipur and the availability of medical facilities there, the Tribunal held that these general assertions did not establish an unavoidable administrative constraint requiring the applicant’s displacement.

In particular, the applicant was transferred out of Bhubaneswar while Respondent No. 6 was posted in his place, and Respondent No. 6’s own transfer was subsequently cancelled on disability-related grounds.

The Tribunal concluded that the respondents had failed to give adequate, empathetic and policy-compliant consideration to the applicant’s caregiver status, and that the impugned orders reflected non-application of mind and arbitrary exercise of administrative discretion.

It accordingly quashed the transfer order dated 22 June 2022 and the order dated 27 July 2022 rejecting the applicant’s representation.

The Original Application was allowed, pending miscellaneous applications were disposed of, and the parties were directed to bear their own costs.