Statutory protections for caregivers of disabled children override administrative transfer policies and general guidelines.

The applicant, a Senior Auditor under the Controller of Defence Accounts (CDA), Patna, challenged a series of transfer orders (dated 19.05.2023 and subsequent rejections) moving him from Danapur, Bihar, to Gopalpur, Odisha

The applicant sought exemption on the grounds of being the primary caregiver for his 26-year-old son, who suffers from Epilepsy/seizure disorder

He argued that the transfer violated Department of Personnel and Training (DoPT) Office Memoranda (OMs) dated 06.06.2014 and 08.10.2018, which provide protection from transfer for government employees who are caregivers to differently-abled children

Initially, the respondents rejected his representation, stating that "seizure disorder" was not listed in the CDA’s local transfer policy

Following a previous Tribunal direction in OA 703/2024, the respondents passed a speaking order on 06.12.2024, again refusing the request on the grounds that the applicant had not joined the new station before seeking relief

The applicant eventually joined the Gopalpur station under protest on 07.04.2025

1. Whether the transfer of a government employee who is a caregiver to a child with a benchmark disability is sustainable under the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016, and relevant DoPT guidelines

2. Whether the respondents’ refusal to cancel the transfer order, despite providing similar relief to other similarly situated employees, amounted to administrative malice and discrimination

The court primarily applied the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016, specifically Section 2 (defining "care-giver") and Chapter II (concerning equality and non-discrimination for persons with disabilities)

It relied on DoPT OMs dated 06.06.2014 and 08.10.2018, which grant exemptions from routine transfers to employees who are caregivers of disabled children

The Tribunal further applied the precedent set by the CAT Principal Bench in OA No. 2233/2017, which held that caregivers must be given treatment distinct from general transfer policies to ensure the rehabilitation of disabled dependents

While the respondents cited S.C. Saxena v. UOI (2009) 9 SCC 583 regarding the duty of an employee to report to a transferred post before litigating, the Tribunal emphasized that statutory rights under the 2016 Act carry significant weight in such evaluations

The Tribunal found that the respondents failed to consider the applicant’s role as a caregiver within the statutory framework of the 2016 Act

It noted that local transfer policies cannot supersede national DoPT OMs, which were designed to protect the rights of the disabled and their caregivers

The court observed that the respondents’ insistence on the applicant joining the post before considering his grievance was satisfied when he reported to Gopalpur in April 2025; however, the respondents then inappropriately deferred their decision by claiming the matter was sub judice

Furthermore, the Tribunal identified "apparent malice" and discrimination, noting that the respondents had cancelled the transfer of another official (Shri Mukesh Prasad) under near-identical circumstances involving a disabled child

The court concluded that the respondents' actions were not only against public policy but also an "abdication of responsibility" to pass a reasoned order

It directed the respondents to allow the applicant to continue his service at AAO BSO, Danapur, Bihar. Additionally, the respondents were ordered to consider the payment of unpaid salary from May 2024 until the date of the applicant's joining at the transferred station, subject to applicable rules and procedures. No order as to costs was made