Promotion may entail transfer, but medical hardship warrants posting at a location with adequate treatment facilities.

The respondent, an Assistant Manager (Finance), was promoted to Manager (Finance) in 2022 but declined the promotion because the proposed posting was at Delhi; consequently, she was debarred from promotion for two years.

In 2024, she was again promoted and offered posting at Khajuraho, which she again declined, citing her son’s heart ailment and the need to access appropriate medical facilities.

The respondent had been posted at Raja Bhoj International Airport, Bhopal, since 2006.

She filed W.P. No. 630/2025, which was allowed on 16 October 2025, with a direction to the appellant to consider her posting to Bhopal or another place having advanced medical facilities for her son.

The Airport Authority of India filed the present writ appeal with a delay of 121 days and sought condonation of delay.

During the appeal, the appellant stated that the respondent’s debarment period would expire on 5 September 2026 and that, if selected for promotion in the next DPC, she could be posted at a suitable place other than Bhopal with adequate medical facilities.

The respondent agreed to join the promotional post, subject to being posted at a place with adequate medical facilities.

The Court applied the principle that delay may be condoned where the applicant establishes “sufficient cause” and the explanation is bona fide, while emphasising that governmental or institutional litigants should disclose the decision-making process and the time taken at each stage; in this regard, it relied on Motilal Songara v. Prem Prakash alias Pappu, (2013) 9 SCC 199, Sheo Raj Singh (Deceased) through Legal Representatives v. Union of India, (2023) 10 SCC 531, and Vishnu Vardhan @ Vishnu Pradhan v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1501.

The Court further applied the principle that service-related promotion and transfer decisions remain subject to the applicable service policy and administrative assessment, while relevant humanitarian and medical circumstances may be considered by the employer.

The Court accepted that the appeal involved questions concerning the AAI’s transfer policy, promotion-cum-transfer orders, refusal of promotion, and the resulting service consequences; the matter had consequently been examined by officers at the airport, regional headquarters, and corporate headquarters, causing the delay.

Although the delay was 121 days, the Court found the explanation sufficient and bona fide, but imposed a cost of Rs. 5,000 and directed the appellant to provide date-wise details of its decision-making process in future cases.

On the merits, the Court considered that the respondent had remained posted at Bhopal for approximately 20 years and that she should now take promotion and serve at a promotional posting.

At the same time, recognising the respondent’s son’s medical condition and the parties’ consensus, the Court directed that, if she was found suitable for promotion in the next DPC, the appellant should post her at a suitable place other than Bhopal where adequate medical facilities were available.

The impugned order dated 16 October 2025 in W.P. No. 630/2025 was set aside.

The writ appeal was disposed of with the direction that, if the respondent was found suitable for promotion in the next DPC, the appellant should post her at a suitable place other than Bhopal having adequate medical facilities for her son, while permitting her to perform duties on the promotional post.