Case at a Glance
A Biology lecturer in a government school in Karauli district gave birth on 9 June 2026 and, while still on maternity leave, was transferred to another school by an order dated 10 July 2026. The Rajasthan High Court held that the transfer was contrary to the State’s own transfer policy and to the infant’s right under Article 21, and that “the exigency of service is not an absolute shield”. It directed the authority to decide her fresh representation sympathetically by a reasoned order within five weeks, and stayed the transfer as to her for six weeks in the meantime.
Arti Kumari, about 36 years old, is a Lecturer (Biology) at the Government Senior Secondary School, Bhukarawali, in Block Hindaun City, District Karauli. She delivered a child on 9 June 2026 and was on maternity leave when, by an order dated 10 July 2026, she was transferred to Mahatma Gandhi Government School, Kased, also in District Karauli. Her counsel said the new posting was around 100 kilometres away and relied on the High Court’s order dated 29 September 2026 in Suman Meena v. State of Rajasthan (S.B.C.W.P. No. 19649/2026), where a similarly placed mother was allowed to file a representation and the authority was asked to take a sympathetic view.
The State opposed the petition. It said that government policy is not to disturb mothers on maternity leave, but that this transfer was within the same district and was made due to administrative exigency, so the Court should not interfere.
The Key Question Before the Court
Can the State transfer a woman employee who is on maternity leave with an infant of a few months, and when will the High Court step in despite the general rule that transfer is an incident of service?
Exigency of Service Is Not an Absolute Shield When an Infant Is Involved
Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand began from the settled position that transfer is an incident and exigency of service and that courts ordinarily do not interfere unless there is mala fides or grave hardship. But “the exigency of service is not an absolute shield”; extreme hardship, such as the critical needs of an infant, is an exception. Once an infant is involved, the focus shifts to the child, because “The welfare of the child is the paramount consideration of the Court.” As a general perception, a woman employee with a child under one year “should not be disturbed and her case should be considered sympathetically”. Finding it undisputed that the child was born on 9 June 2026 and that the transfer came during maternity leave, the Court held that the transfer “is not only against the transfer policy of the State” but also against humanity and the infant’s right under Article 21.
The Court held that a newborn’s right to maternal care and nutrition is implicit in Articles 21 and 15(3) and is protected by the Maternity Benefit Act, 1961. Referring to WHO and UNICEF guidance on exclusive breastfeeding in the early months, it said breastfeeding and motherhood form part of the right to life with dignity, and separation would cause harm that cannot be compensated. The State, as a model employer, should not break this bond through mechanical transfers. It also referred to the 2017 amendment to the Maternity Benefit Act, Child Care Leave norms and the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, and directed the authorities to consider the case “sympathetically and humanely, rather than mechanically”.
What the Court Actually Held
- Transfer is an incident of service, but exigency of service is not an absolute shield where an infant’s critical needs cause extreme hardship.
- Transferring a mother during maternity leave, with a child of about four months, was against the State’s transfer policy and the infant’s rights under Articles 21 and 15(3).
- The petitioner may file a fresh representation within seven days of receiving a certified copy, with the order, proof of the child’s age and a medical certificate on the need for breastfeeding and bonding; the competent authority must decide it sympathetically by a reasoned, speaking order within five weeks.
- The transfer is stayed as to the petitioner for six weeks and she may continue at her present posting meanwhile; the respondents may issue a fresh transfer order after one year if exigency arises, and the order is confined to its facts.
Why This Judgment Matters
- Transfers of women employees during or just after maternity leave are a frequent grievance; the order squarely ties such cases to the infant’s constitutional rights, not only to service rules.
- It treats a child below one year as a strong ground for sympathetic consideration, and asks the State to act as a model employer rather than transferring mechanically.
- It follows a line of recent Rajasthan High Court orders, including Suman Meena v. State of Rajasthan, giving new mothers an effective route to have transfers reconsidered.
What Should Advocates Take Away From the Judgment?
For Women Employees
- If you are transferred while on maternity leave or with a child below one year, file a representation citing the State’s policy and attach the child’s birth certificate and a medical certificate on breastfeeding needs.
- Approach the High Court promptly if the representation is ignored or rejected mechanically; this order stayed the transfer for six weeks pending a decision.
- Remember the relief is fact-specific: the State can transfer you again after a year if there is administrative need.
For Counsel
- Frame the challenge around the extreme-hardship exception to the ‘incident of service’ rule, and Articles 21 and 15(3) read with the Maternity Benefit Act, 1961.
- Cite Suman Meena v. State of Rajasthan and this order, but note the Court said its order may not be treated as a precedent.
- Ask for a time-bound reasoned decision on the representation and an interim stay till then.
Key Takeaways
- Exigency of service does not override the critical needs of an infant in every case.
- A woman employee with a child below one year should ordinarily not be disturbed and her case should be considered sympathetically.
- Breastfeeding and motherhood are recognised as part of the right to life with dignity under Article 21.
- Relief here was a stay of six weeks plus a direction to decide a fresh representation within five weeks by a reasoned order.
Frequently Asked Questions
Can a government employee be transferred during maternity leave in Rajasthan?
In this case the State itself said its policy is not to disturb mothers on maternity leave. The High Court found the transfer of a lecturer during maternity leave contrary to that policy and to the infant’s Article 21 rights, and stayed it pending reconsideration.
Did the High Court cancel the transfer?
No. It directed the authority to decide a fresh representation sympathetically within five weeks by a reasoned order, stayed the transfer for the petitioner for six weeks, and allowed a fresh transfer after one year if exigency arises.
What documents should be attached to the representation?
The Court required a copy of its order, the birth certificate or other proof of the child’s age, and a medical certificate showing the need for breastfeeding and bonding.
Conclusion
The order balances the State’s right to post its employees where needed against the needs of a four-month-old child, and comes down firmly on the side of the infant while leaving the final decision to the department. It reminds administrators that a transfer policy protecting new mothers must be applied, not bypassed through ‘administrative exigency’.
Practical takeaway: New mothers transferred during maternity leave should promptly file a documented representation; where it is not considered humanely, the High Court can stay the transfer and require a reasoned, time-bound decision.
For more judgments, legal opinions and case analysis, visit courtkutchehry.com