Routine transfer of a primary caregiver to a benchmark-disabled dependent is impermissible absent overriding administrative constraints.

The applicant, a Nursing Officer with ESIC, was initially appointed at ESIC Model Hospital, Noida, on 27 June 2009 and subsequently obtained an inter-regional transfer to ESIC Hospital, Tirunelveli, on 22 November 2013, resulting in forfeiture of his earlier seniority.

During the 2026 Annual General Transfer exercise, he sought retention in Tamil Nadu and exercised ESIC Medical College, K.K. Nagar, as his first preference, but was transferred to ESIC Hospital, Raigarh, by order dated 26 June 2026.

The applicant relied principally on his mother’s 90% locomotor benchmark disability, her cancer treatment, his father’s medical condition, his status as the only son and caregiver, his children’s education, and his spouse’s employment at a distant station.

His request was rejected by a speaking order dated 22 July 2026, followed by a relieving order dated 23 July 2026.

The respondents maintained that transfer was an incident of service, that organisational interest prevailed under the ESIC Nursing Transfer Policy dated 17 December 2024, and that the DoPT instructions did not create an absolute exemption from transfer.

The Tribunal had earlier directed the respondents to treat the applicant’s OA as a representation and pass a reasoned order; the impugned speaking order was issued pursuant to that direction.

1. Whether the applicant’s transfer to Raigarh during the routine Annual General Transfer exercise was lawful despite his status as the primary caregiver of a dependent parent having 90% locomotor benchmark disability under the applicable DoPT instructions?

2. Whether the respondents’ reliance on organisational interest and the ESIC Nursing Transfer Policy was sufficient when the impugned orders did not identify any specific administrative constraint preventing the applicant’s retention or posting at one of his preferred Tamil Nadu stations?

3. Whether the transfer order, speaking order and relieving order were liable to be quashed for failure to properly consider the DoPT caregiver-protection guidelines and the statutory policy of reasonable accommodation under the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016?

Transfer is ordinarily an incident of service, and courts or tribunals will not interfere unless the order is mala fide or contrary to statutory provisions; however, the competent authority must consider applicable governmental guidelines and relevant representations, as held in Union of India v. S.L. Abbas, (1993) 4 SCC 357.

The DoPT Office Memorandum dated 8 October 2018 and the consolidated guidelines dated 2 February 2024 provide that a government employee caring for a dependent daughter, son, parent, spouse, brother or sister with a specified disability certified as benchmark disability may be exempted from routine transfer or rotational transfer, subject to administrative constraints.

The Tribunal treated these instructions as applicable to ESIC and held that the interests of the person with disability, rather than merely the convenience of the caregiver, must receive primacy, relying on Shambhu Nath Rai v. Union of India.

The Tribunal further invoked the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016, including the obligation of reasonable accommodation under Section 20(5), and held that administrative discretion cannot be exercised in disregard of the statutory and welfare-oriented framework protecting persons with disabilities.

The ESIC Nursing Transfer Policy’s emphasis on organisational interest and the absence of a vested right to a preferred station could not override the applicable caregiver-protection instructions.

The Tribunal found that the applicant’s mother possessed a valid Unique Disability ID certifying 90% locomotor disability, which fell within the specified disabilities contemplated by the DoPT instructions.

The impugned transfer formed part of a routine annual rotational transfer exercise, thereby directly attracting the caregiver exemption.

Although the exemption was subject to administrative constraints, neither the transfer order nor the speaking order identified any specific, compelling constraint that made retention at Tirunelveli or posting at one of the applicant’s preferred Tamil Nadu stations impossible.

The respondents’ general reliance on organisational interest, the applicant’s completion of tenure, and the non-statutory nature of transfer guidelines was therefore insufficient.

The Tribunal distinguished the ordinary rule of non-interference in transfers by holding that administrative discretion must be exercised consistently with the DoPT caregiver policy and the reasonable-accommodation obligations arising under the RPwD Act.

The rejection of the applicant’s request was consequently found to have entirely disregarded the applicable protection for caregivers of persons with benchmark disabilities.

It accordingly quashed and set aside the transfer order dated 26 June 2026, the speaking order dated 22 July 2026, and the relieving order dated 23 July 2026, insofar as they concerned the applicant.

The respondents were directed to maintain the status quo ante regarding his posting and to reconsider his case for formal exemption under the caregiver criteria or, alternatively, post him at ESIC Medical College, K.K. Nagar, his first preference under AGT-2026, within four weeks.

The OA was allowed without an order as to costs.