Transfer of Benchmark Disability Employees may be Stayed Pending Consideration of Medical Condition Representations

The applicant, Rahul Dutt, an MTS employee working at Block Kahara, District Doda, challenged the transfer order dated 22.04.2026.

The applicant is suffering from Ankylosing Spondylitis, a chronic inflammatory disease, and has been certified with a 55% permanent locomotor (benchmark) disability.

He also recently underwent hip replacement surgery.

The applicant sought quashment of the transfer order and a direction to remain at his current posting due to his medical condition.

1. Whether the transfer order dated 22.04.2026, as it pertains to the applicant, is sustainable given the applicant’s medical condition and benchmark disability.

2. Whether the respondents should be directed to consider the applicant's representation in a time-bound manner while maintaining the status quo.

Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, which empowers the Tribunal to hear applications regarding grievances in service matters.

Administrative authorities must consider "sympathetic" and "reasoned" grounds, such as medical hardship and benchmark disabilities, when executing transfer orders.

The Tribunal analyzed the applicant's medical records, noting the severity of Ankylosing Spondylitis and the 55% locomotor disability certification issued by competent medical authorities.

The court observed that the applicant had recently undergone significant surgery (hip replacement), which necessitates stability in posting for recovery and mobility reasons.

Rather than quashing the order outright, the Tribunal applied the principle of administrative exhaustion by directing the respondents to treat the Original Application as a formal representation.

The court reasoned that the executive has the primary duty to pass a "reasoned and speaking order" taking into account the specific medical documentation provided by the employee.

The court ordered that a reasoned and speaking order must be passed and communicated to the applicant.

The Tribunal held that "status quo, as on date shall be maintained" and no coercive action or relieving order should be implemented against the applicant until the representation is decided.

No costs were awarded.