Transfer of employee with child in Class XII must be sympathetically considered under "Protected Employee" guidelines.

The applicant, an Executive Engineer (Civil) in the CPWD, was transferred from Delhi to Kochi HQ, Chennai, via order dated 01.10.2025.

This transfer occurred shortly after the applicant secured a promotion on ad hoc basis through litigation (OA No. 536/2025).

The applicant challenged the transfer and the subsequent rejection of his representation (dated 23.04.2026), citing his wife’s medical condition (“Pemphigus Vulgaris”) and his son’s critical academic year.

His son was in Class XI at the time of the order and is currently in Class XII, registered for the 2027 CBSE Board Exams.

The applicant further challenged a new Office Memorandum (OM) dated 28.04.2026, which allegedly rendered him ineligible to apply for a transfer back to Delhi.

Despite the challenge, the applicant joined the new posting at Chennai in deference to the order.

1. Whether the transfer of the applicant to Chennai was arbitrary and in violation of the "Protected Employee" status under the existing Transfer Guidelines.

2. Whether the applicant is entitled to a relaxation or curtailment of the prescribed tenure at his current posting to apply for a transfer back to Delhi due to his son’s education.

The Tribunal relied on the CPWD Transfer Policy, specifically the provisions regarding "Protected Employees".

Under Clause (ix)(b), employees whose children are studying in Class 10th or 12th during the year of consideration are protected from transfer without their consent.

The Tribunal considered the New Education Policy, noting that registration for Class XII happens in Class XI, necessitating academic continuity.

The court also exercised its discretionary power to direct a "sympathetic consideration" for relaxation of tenure conditions in cases of genuine hardship.

The Tribunal observed that the applicant’s son is currently in Class XII and scheduled for board exams in early 2027, which is a fact not disputed by the respondents.

Under the Transfer Policy, this status classifies the employee as "Protected".

The Tribunal noted that shifting a student during the Class XII academic year would cause serious prejudice to their studies.

While the applicant had already complied with the transfer order by joining at Chennai, the Tribunal found that his compliance should not bar him from seeking relief based on legitimate hardships.

The Tribunal determined that because the applicant is now at the transferred station, the respondents are obligated to consider his request for a transfer back to Delhi or NCR by granting a relaxation of the newly prescribed tenure requirements, which otherwise made him ineligible.

The respondents were ordered to enable the applicant to apply in the transfer window for a posting in Delhi, Delhi-NCR, or a nearby station, prioritizing the educational interests of his son.

No order as to costs was made.