AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
ORDER
Shri P.K. Dwivedi, learned counsel for the applicant and Shri Chakrapani Vatsyayan, learned counsel for the respondents, are present and heard.
Present Original Application has been filed under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, seeking the following reliefs:-
“(i)This Hon’ble Tribunal may kindly be pleased to set aside the impugned order dated 23.06.2026 passed by the Respondent No.3 is being filed herewith and marked as Annexure No. A-1 in Compilation-I to this Original Application.
(ii)This Hon’ble Tribunal may kindly be pleased to set aside the impugned order dated 24.06.2026 passed by the Respondent No.3 is being filed herewith and marked as Annexure No. A-2 in Compilation-I to this Original Application.
(iii)This Hon’ble Tribunal may kindly be pleased to set aside the impugned order dated 02.06.2026 passed by the Respondent No.3 is being filed herewith and marked as Annexure No. A-3 in Compilation-I to this Original Central Administrative TribunalApplication.
(iv)This Hon’ble Tribunal may be pleased to issue an order or direction commanding the respondents to permit the applicant to continue his services at present place of posting i.e. National Statistical Office, Sub Regional Office, Varanasi.
(v)To issue any other order or direction as deem fit and appropriate by this Hon’ble Tribunal under the facts and circumstances.
(vi)To award the cost of the Original Application in favour of the applicant.”
The brief facts of the case as narrated in the OA are that the applicant was selected through the Staff Selection Commission pursuant to the Combined Graduate Level Examination and was appointed as Statistical Investigator Grade-II in the Office of the Economic Adviser, Ministry of Commerce & Industry, Udyog Bhawan, New Delhi, vide appointment letter dated 30.11.2012. He was subsequently transferred from New Delhi to the Sub-Regional Office, Varanasi in the year 2015 and was promoted to the post of Senior Statistical Officer vide promotion order dated 09.12.2019. The applicant's son, namely Karuna Sagar, is stated to be a person with disability, for which, disability certificates were issued on 23.04.2026 and 16.05.2026. The applicant has stated that his son requires medical treatment/therapy at Varanasi and that he is the person taking care of him. However, vide order dated 17.04.2026, the applicant was transferred from NSO, FOD, Varanasi to NSO, FOD, Madurai, Tamil Nadu. The applicant submitted a representation dated 22.04.2026 seeking exemption from transfer and retention at Varanasi. He thereafter approached this Tribunal by filing O.A. No. 587 of 2026, which was disposed of on 27.05.2026 with a direction to the competent authority to consider and decide his representation in accordance with law and applicable policy/guidelines, while taking into consideration the medical condition of his child and the treatment being undertaken at Varanasi. Pursuant thereto, the Transfer and Placement Committee reconsidered the matter and vide order dated 02.06.2026 modified the applicant's transfer from Madurai, Tamil Central Administrative Tribunal Nadu to Rewa, Madhya Pradesh. Thereafter, a further order dated 23.06.2026 was passed and the applicant was relieved vide order dated 24.06.2026. Aggrieved by the aforesaid orders, the applicant has filed the present Original Application.
Submission of learned counsel for the applicant is that the applicant is posted at present at the Varanasi office. Initially on appointment, he was posted at New Delhi. Thereafter, he was transferred to Varanasi. The applicant’s wife is posted as teacher in Primary School at Zamaniya, District Ghazipur under State’s Basic Shiksha Parishad. The applicant was transferred from Varanasi to Madurai vide order dated 17.04.2026 and just after the transfer order, he moved a representation which has not been decided. The applicant’s three year old child is suffering from Autism Spectrum Disorder and treatment is going on at Varanasi itself and the applicant is the only caregiver of the child. It is next argued that when representation moved by the applicant to let him stay at Varanasi itself and cancel the transfer order passed on 17.04.2026 was not decided, he approached this Tribunal through O.A./587/2026 which was decided on 27.05.2026 with the direction to the respondents to take decision on the representation dated 22.04.2026 in light of the Office Memorandum dated 08.10.2018. Referring to the aforesaid memorandum, learned counsel for the applicant further argued that para no.3 sub para 2 of the aforesaid memorandum specifically provides that relaxation may be given to the caregiver to look after the child suffering from special diseases. It is also argued that no tenure period for staying in one place is given in this O.M., although the applicant is working at Varanasi for nearly ten years, yet, keeping in view the specific provision provided in the O.M. dated 08.10.2018 (Annexure no. A-11), learned counsel for the applicant further argued that rotational transfer and tenure period both will not be applicable in the matter of the applicant. It is also argued that a number of similarly situated employees have also moved representations which were allowed and their transfer orders were Central Administrative Tribunal cancelled and they remained posted at the same place. The applicant’s case is also of similar nature. Although the respondents have passed an order on the representation, the applicant has been posted at Rewa in Madhya Pradesh which is far away from Varanasi. Since special care is required to the child, the presence of both the husband and wife at the place where the child is residing is needed. Thus, it was argued that the impugned order passed in the O.A. is illegal and against the provision of O.M. dated 08.10.2018. Learned counsel for the applicant placed reliance on the following case laws:-(i) O.A./2233/2017 (Pradeep Kumar Shrivastava vs Central Bureau of Investigation and anr) along with O.A./2236/2017 (Mukesh Prasad vs UOI and others) decided by the Principal Bench of this Tribunal on 08.02.2018. (ii) O.A./808/2024 (Dr. Narendra Kumar vs. Council of Scientific & Industrial Research and others) decided by the Lucknow Bench of this Tribunal on 17.01.2025. (iii) Writ -A No. 3793 of 2022 (Neeraj Chaturvedi vs Central Bank of India) decided by the Hon’ble High Court of Allahabad on 09.06.2022.
Learned counsel for the respondents argued that the applicant has been posted at Varanasi since 2015. He was accommodated at Varanasi itself after promotion in the year 2019. Since more than ten years have gone by since his posting at the same station, the applicant was transferred on administrative exigency and in public interest. The direction given in O.A./587/2026 has been compiled with and the DoPT OM dated 08.10.2018 shall be read in consonance with other circular/O.M. issued by the respondents. It is next argued that considering the prayer of the applicant, transfer order passed on dated 17.04.2026 with respect to him has been modified and in place of Madurai, Tamil Nadu, the applicant has Central Administrative Tribunal been transferred to Rewa, Madhya Pradesh. It is also argued that the applicant has disclosed his address as Ghazipur. Nothing is mentioned in the entire pleadings to establish that the applicant is residing along with his child at Varanasi. The applicant’s wife is also posted at Ghazipur. Referring to the medical evidence annexed with the O.A, it is also argued that except one document which was issued by Sir Sundarlal Chikitsalaya, Kashi Hindu Vishwavidyalaya, Varanasi, other documents that is Annexure No.7 have been issued on 23.04.2026 and thereafter. Thus, it was argued that the medical reports have been obtained only to create a ground for cancellation of the transfer order dated 17.04.2026. It is next argued that if for the sake of argument the applicant’s prayer is allowed, then also he will have to visit Varanasi from Ghazipur for treatment and therapy of the child. Since the wife of the applicant is still posted at Ghazipur, is a well qualified and a working lady, thus, it cannot be said that no one is there to take care of the child. It is also argued that the distance between Rewa and Varanasi is not too long. Thus, referring to the entire facts and circumstances of the case, it was argued that the guidelines laid down in the O.M. dated 08.10.2018 is not of binding nature, it is only a guideline but considering all the facts and circumstances of the case, the earlier transfer order passed in respect of the applicant has been modified. He contends that the applicant has joined a central government service and he cannot insist on remaining posted at the same station beyond the tenure period. In the present matter, the applicant has been posted at Varanasi for more than ten years, whereas, the O.M. dated 03.10.2023 (Annexure A-12) clearly provides that maximum tenure period is seven years. Thus, it was argued that the O.A. be dismissed.
I have considered the rival submissions of learned counsel for the parties and gone through the entire record.
Before discussing the submission raised across the Bar, it will be useful to quote the relevant paragraphs of the case laws relied upon by the parties. Central Administrative Tribunal In Pradeep Kumar Shrivastava (supra) case, the Principal Bench of this Tribunal in paragraph no. 27 and 28 has held as under:-
27.It is on the basis of the aforementioned parameters that the validity of the impugned transfer of the applicant is required to be addressed. Undisputedly, the child and the wife of the applicant are disabled persons. They require special attention, high support, medicare, social and physical support even for their day to day activities. The applicant is the sole member in the family who is to transfer policy of the Government is meant for the Government servants whose circumstances are normal and not extraordinary. Here is a case where the applicant has extraordinary, rather abnormal circumstances. His request for transfer cannot be looked into under the normal circumstances. Special circumstances exist and have to be addressed differently. Special disease requires special treatment.
28.In the present case, shifting of the applicant would have definitely adverse impact on the child and wife of the applicant, particularly the child. Pudducherry being in South zone, the child would definitely feel language problem in interaction with his teachers and classmates. He will have to develop new relations in a new school both with teachers and students. Sanskriti being a very prestigious and advanced institute, there may be special educators for such disabled children. In any case, over the years the teachers may have understood the disability factor of the applicant's son and they may be in a better position to communicate and interact with him. The atmosphere at Delhi for study of the child of the applicant is conducive. He is undergoing treatment at Delhi and is being assessed and evaluated by an expert super specialty hospital. We are not informed that similar facilities on medical front would be available at Pudducheerry. There may be doctors who may be able to treatment may not be an effective instrument. It is the total support system for such a disabled child, which includes the social atmosphere, the language, communication, interaction and various other aspects that matter for his rehabilitation, which are essential. Such support system may be lacking at Pudducherry. One cannot take a chance with the new environment under the given circumstances.
Similarly, in Neeraj Chaturvedi (supra) case, in paragraph no. 17 and 18, the Hon’ble High Court has held as under:-
17.Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the material available on record, I am of the considered opinion that if there is any beneficial or compassionate policy to accommodate any employee for the specific and certain reason, the same must be abide by in its letter and spirit.
18.Since wife of the petitioner is a permanent disable person having 100% disability and to look-after and take care of her is a sole responsibility of the petitioner, then his status shall come within the meaning of term 'care-giver' as defines under Section 2 (d) of the Act, 2016. On account of disability of wife of the Central Administrative Tribunal petitioner, she is a person with the 'benchmark disability' and a 'person with disability' as per the meaning of Section 2 (r) & (s) of the Act, 2016. If the Competent Authority of the Bank has transferred the petitioner in compliance of the Transfer Policy/ Guidelines which provides that whosoever has completed 10 years of service at one place shall be transferred from one zone to another zone, then the same policy also clearly indicates vide para 1.2 that a transfer/ posting of a spouse etc. of a person with 'benchmark disability' or long term disability, shall be exempted from routine/ rotational transfer in terms of DOPT Guidelines dated 08.10.2018. The DOPT Guidelines (supra) clearly provides that such government employee may be exempted from routine transfer/ rotational transfer subject to the administrative constraints. A routine/ rotational transfer, which has been made in compliance of the guidelines, may not be considered as administrative constraint. Besides, if the same policy is is of beneficial nature shall prevail over the general guidelines is providing two separate guidelines, the guideline which inasmuch as a particular purpose and if such guideline is flouted it may cause an irreparable loss to a person which, generally, cannot be compensated in terms of money.
In Dr. Narendra Kumar (supra) case, in paragraph no. 9.1 and 9.2, Lucknow Bench of this Tribunal has held as under:-
9.1As regards the applicant's contention that it is not possible for him to maintain the said depositories from Pantnagar, as no expert in pharmacognosy is available at CIMAP Lucknow other than the applicant, it is observed that the matter falls squarely within the domain of the executive and does not lend itself to judicial review.
9.2In view of the position above, the applicant is free to express his concerns to the respondents and it is for the respondents to address such concerns in a manner which is fair and just.
In this matter, as is evident from the record, the applicant has been posted at Varanasi since 2015. He has also got one promotion and was accommodated at Varanasi itself. The applicant was initially transferred vide order dated 17.04.2026 from Varanasi to Madurai, Tamil Nadu. Later, he moved a representation dated 22.04.2026 for cancelling the transfer order. Since, no order was passed on his representation, he approached this Tribunal through O.A./587/2026 which was decided on 27.05.2026 with the direction to take a decision on the representation and interim protection was also allowed to the applicant till the decision was taken on the representation. It further appears that the applicant’s representation has been decided and considering the representation of the applicant, the transfer order dated 17.04.2026 has been Central Administrative Tribunal modified in his respect from Madurai, Tamil Nadu to Rewa, Madhya Pradesh. It is also evident from the record that the applicant has given his address as Ghazipur and this fact also finds support in the verification clause of the O.A. as well as the rejoinder affidavit. Nothing is mentioned in the O.A. or in the rejoinder affidavit regarding the residence of the applicant at Varanasi. The respondents, vide impugned order, as has been mentioned hereinabove, have modified the place of posting. The OM dated 08.10.2018 provides for exemption from routine exercise of transfer/rotational transfer to give care to the children suffering from specified disease under the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016. The applicant’s stand is that his child is suffering from Autism Spectrum Disorder and paragraph no.3 sub paragraph no.2 of the OM dated 08.10.2018 specifically mentions the aforesaid disease, therefore, the applicant should be exempted from routine exercise of transfer.
The stand of the respondents is that the applicant is posted at Varanasi since 2015 and the transfer is made on the ground of exigency and administrative reason. The guideline laid down in the O.M. dated 08.10.2018 is not of binding nature and the aforesaid guideline should be read in consonance with other circulars/OMs.
In the light of the aforesaid factual backdrop, if the submission raised on behalf of the parties are analysed, it is clear that the applicant’s wife is also a working lady and posted at Ghazipur itself. The applicant’s plea that he is the sole caregiver of his child cannot be accepted. The applicant’s transfer has been modified from Madurai, Tamil Nadu to Rewa, Madhya Pradesh, which is comparatively much closer to Varanasi. Besides, the child’s mother is also available to take care of the child. As has been noted hereinabove, the applicant has given his address at Ghazipur. His wife is also posted at Ghazipur. If they are residing at Ghazipur even then for medical checkup or any therapy of the child, they must be travelling from Ghazipur to Varanasi. The guidelines laid down in O.M. dated 08.10.2018 has been taken into consideration by the respondents while deciding the representation of the applicant. If the submission of the applicant that he should be exempted from routine transfer in light of the aforesaid guidelines is taken into consideration, it would mean that the applicant would never be transferred from Varanasi during his entire service period. As the guidelines laid down in the O.M. dated 08.10.2018 should be read in consonance with other guidelines issued by the respondents with respect to transfer, it should be kept in mind that tenure period has been provided to limit the posting of an employee at a particular station for administrative considerations and in public interest. The applicant has continued at Varanasi itself for more than ten years. Thus, he has stayed at Varanasi beyond the tenure period. If the guidelines laid down in the O.M. dated 08.10.2018 and the other guidelines disclosed by the respondents in the counter affidavit are read together, the submissions of learned counsel for the applicant that the guidelines laid down in the O.M. dated 08.10.2018 is binding in nature cannot be accepted. It is simply a guideline and certain categories of employees covered under this O.M. may be exempted from routine transfer in case the concerned employee is the sole caregiver of the child with specified disease. In the present matter, the applicant’s plea that he is the sole caregiver of the child with Autism Spectrum Disorder cannot be accepted for the reasons disclosed hereinabove and the new place of posting is also comparatively closer to Varanasi.
So far as the applicant’s plea that there is malafide on behalf of the respondent is concerned, this fact has not been established by the applicant in his pleadings. If there was any malafide on part of the respondents, they would not have modified the transfer order from Madurai to Rewa. Thus, this pleading is also not acceptable.
So far as the law laid down in the case laws relied upon by the learned counsel for the applicant is concerned, in Pradeep Kumar Srivastava (supra) case, the transfer order was cancelled on the persons and the applicant was the only caregiver. In the present matter, the applicant is not the sole caregiver of the child concerned as the mother of the child is also residing with the child and as a working lady she is educated enough to cater to the medical needs of the child.
Similarly, in Neeraj Chaturvedi (supra) case, transfer of the employee concerned was cancelled on the ground that his wife was physically disabled person and no one except the employee concerned was there to take care of her.
The fact of Dr. Narendra Kumar (supra) case is also distinguishable from the facts of the present O.A. and the applicant does not get any help from the law laid down in the Dr. Narendra Kumar (supra) case as well as the other case laws relied upon by him.
In view of the foregoing discussion, I do not find any legally sustainable ground to interfere with the impugned orders. The Original Application, therefore, lacks merit and is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, the Original Application is dismissed.
All associated MAs, if any, also stand disposed of. No order as to costs.