Routine transfer of a government caregiver of a benchmark-disabled child may be exempted, subject to administrative constraints.

The petitioner, a Deputy Manager of the Tamil Nadu Salt Corporation Limited, was posted at the Corporate Office, Chennai, pursuant to an order dated 24.03.2025. By order dated 11.05.2026, the first respondent transferred him from Chennai to Valinokkam, Ramanathapuram District.

The petitioner challenged the transfer under Article 226 of the Constitution, contending that he had been shifted within approximately 14 months and that his daughter, who is a child with special needs, required specialised care available at Chennai. He further submitted that his wife was employed in Chennai and relied on G.O.Ms.No.107, Personnel and Administrative Reforms (S) Department, dated 03.09.2020, concerning exemption from routine transfers for caregivers of persons with benchmark disabilities.

The respondents argued that the Chennai posting followed the petitioner’s promotion and that the challenge was belated, having been filed about four months after the impugned order. The petitioner explained the delay by referring to major surgery undergone on 03.07.2026.

Whether the petitioner’s transfer from Chennai to Valinokkam was liable to be set aside in view of his responsibility as caregiver of a dependent child with special needs.

Whether G.O.Ms.No.107, Personnel and Administrative Reforms (S) Department, dated 03.09.2020, entitled the petitioner to exemption from the routine exercise of transfer, subject to administrative constraints.

Whether the petitioner was entitled to suitable accommodation within Chennai.

The Court applied G.O.Ms.No.107, Personnel and Administrative Reforms (S) Department, dated 03.09.2020, which provides that a Government employee who is the caregiver of a dependent daughter, son, parent, spouse, brother, or sister with specified disability, certified as a “Person with Benchmark Disability” under Section 2(r) of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016, may be exempted from the routine exercise of transfer during the annual transfer period, subject to administrative constraints.

The governing principle was that this beneficial provision should be considered sympathetically in light of the demanding responsibilities involved in caring for a differently abled child, particularly a girl child.

No judicial precedent was cited.

The Court accepted that the petitioner had a special child whose care required substantial attention and specialised arrangements at Chennai.

It treated G.O.Ms.No.107 as a beneficial measure intended to protect caregivers of dependent persons with benchmark disabilities and held that the petitioner’s case required sympathetic consideration under that framework.

Although the respondents relied on the petitioner’s posting through promotion and questioned the delay in filing the writ petition, the Court considered the caregiving circumstances and the medical difficulties relied upon by the petitioner sufficient to warrant interference with the transfer order.

Applying the exemption contemplated by the Government Order, the Court concluded that the transfer from Chennai should not stand.

The respondents were directed to accommodate the petitioner at any suitable place of posting within Chennai, having regard to his circumstances as caregiver of a special child. No costs were awarded, and the connected miscellaneous petitions were closed.