V. Kaviyarasan vs Directorate General Of Health Services & Ors.

The present OA has been filed by the applicant seeking the following relief(s):-

Learned counsel for the Applicant submits that the present Original Application has been filed by the Applicant, Shri V. Kaviyarasan, presently serving as a Drug Inspector under the Central Drugs Standard Control Organisation (CDSCO), challenging the following orders:

It is stated that, by way of the aforesaid orders, the Applicant's request for exemption from routine transfer, made on the ground that he is the sole caregiver of his aged mother suffering from Alzheimer's disease and having a benchmark disability, has been rejected. According to learned counsel, the impugned orders fail to take into consideration the Applicant's personal and compassionate circumstances and are contrary to the principles of reasonable accommodation embodied in the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016, as well as the Office Memoranda dated 02.07.2015 and 08.10.2018 issued by the Department of Personnel and Training (DoP&T) and the directive dated 29.03.2023 issued by the Ministry of Central Administrative Tribunal^Finance.

Learned counsel further stated that the aforesaid instructions contemplate extending due preference and exemption from routine transfers to employees who are caregivers of dependants suffering from benchmark disabilities. It is contended that the transfer/posting of employees is also required to take into account considerations of seniority, compassionate circumstances and the peculiar personal circumstances of the employee, subject, of course, to administrative requirements.

It is stated that the Applicant had earlier approached the Chief Commissioner for Persons with Disabilities (CCPwD) by filing a complaint dated 27.11.2023, seeking his posting at or near his native place so that he could discharge his responsibilities towards his 75-year-old mother, who is stated to be suffering from Alzheimer's disease and has been certified as a person with benchmark disability under the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016.

Learned counsel stated that the CCPwD, vide a reasoned order dated 08.05.2024 passed in Case No. 14675/1022/2023 (Annexure A8), directed the Respondents to frame an Equal Opportunity Policy in terms of Rule 8 of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Rules, 2017 and further recommended that the Applicant's request be considered with an open mind. It is argued that, notwithstanding the aforesaid order and recommendation, the Applicant's request Central Administrative Tribunal^{was rejected vide Speaking Order dated 24.06.2024, principally on the ground that} he had earlier served at Chennai. According to learned counsel, such consideration was wholly inadequate, as it failed to take into account the continuing and progressive nature of the Applicant mother's illness, her advanced age, the absence of any alternative caregiver and the Applicant's contention that he is the sole person available to look after her.

Learned counsel contends that the Respondents ought to have considered whether the Applicant could reasonably be accommodated at Chennai or at a nearby station, instead of mechanically applying the routine transfer policy. It is submitted that the impugned action is arbitrary and unreasonable and violates the Applicant's rights under Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India, particularly when the request was founded upon the care and protection of a dependent parent suffering from a serious and progressive disability.

Learned counsel further submits that the Applicant duly furnished his transfer preferences within the stipulated period pursuant to the Office Memorandum dated 12.02.2025 (Annexure A10). Despite the same, he was transferred to Jammu, whereas certain other officers were subsequently posted to Chennai and its surrounding zones pursuant to transfer orders dated 02.05.2025 and 09.05.2025. It is stated that the differential treatment meted out to the Applicant assumes significance in view of his seniority and the availability of postings in Chennai and nearby stations. The Applicant, therefore, contends that the discretion exercised by the Respondents has not been applied uniformly and that his genuine compassionate circumstances have been overlooked. Learned counsel stated that the Applicant thereafter filed O.A. No. 1888/2025 before this Tribunal challenging the denial of his request for exemption from routine transfer. Vide interim order dated 21.05.2025, the coordinate bench of this Tribunal directed the Respondents to afford the Applicant a personal hearing.

Pursuant thereto, the Applicant was granted a personal hearing before the Director General of Health Services (DGHS) on 30.06.2025, during which he reiterated his request for a posting at Chennai or any nearby station. It was specifically pointed out that his mother was suffering from Alzheimer's disease, that her condition was acute and progressive, and that there was no viable family support system available to take care of her. It is stated that, despite the aforesaid circumstances having been brought to the notice of the competent authority, the Applicant's request was again rejected vide the impugned order dated 02.07.2025. According to learned counsel, the rejection merely reiterates the administrative grounds of closure of the Krishnapatnam Port office and the requirement of manpower at Jammu, without meaningfully considering the statutory and compassionate aspects of the Applicant's case. Learned counsel also draws attention to the Transfer Policy dated 03.07.2023 issued under F. No. A.22011/02/2023-D and submits that the said policy prescribes restrictions upon continued posting in a metropolitan area beyond two tenures or a cumulative period of ten years. It is contended that the said policy has not been applied uniformly.

In this regard, learned counsel refers to the cases of Smt. Sudarmathi S. Smt. Anbuselvi A., Shri Balakumar M., Shri Deepak Dagar and Shri Vinay Saini and submits that the aforesaid officers have exceeded the prescribed tenure for metropolitan postings. It is argued that such continuation is also inconsistent with the principles contained in Central Vigilance Commission Circular No. 03/09/13 dated 11.09.2013, which contemplates rotation of officers occupying sensitive posts.

Learned counsel further stated that certain officers who had been transferred contemporaneously with the Applicant in July 2023, namely Shri Santhanakrishnan V.S. and Shri Sakthivel P., were subsequently reassigned to Chennai within a period of one year. According to the Applicant, this is particularly relevant since his seniority position was Rank No. 65 as per the official seniority list dated 21.11.2022. The Transfer Policy dated 03.07.2023 and the seniority list have been placed on record.

Learned counsel further stated that several other officers, including Smt. V. Munuswamy Bharthy, Shri Sunil Kulshreshtha and Smt. Swati Srivastava, have also allegedly exceeded the prescribed ten-year ceiling for metropolitan postings at Chennai or Delhi. It is contended that officers junior to the Applicant, including Shri Santhanakrishnan, bearing Seniority No. 212, Shri Sakthivel, bearing Seniority. Central Administrative Tribunal^{129, Ms. Ashwini and Ms. Maradani Meena Devi, have either been permitted to} continue at or have subsequently been accommodated at Chennai.

It is further stated that certain officers, namely Dr. Manavalan P., posted at Sea Port, Chennai, and Dr. B. Kumar, posted at Sub-Zone, Guwahati, are stated to be functioning at stations where, according to the Applicant, no sanctioned vacancies exist. Learned counsel relies upon these instances to contend that administrative exigency cannot be selectively invoked against the Applicant while making exceptions in favour of other officers. Learned counsel stated that the Applicant also submitted a comprehensive representation dated 11.05.2025, reiterating his request for transfer to Chennai or a nearby station and specifically relying upon the order passed by the CCPwD. However, no effective relief was granted to him.

It is therefore contended that the impugned order dated 02.07.2025, though passed pursuant to the direction of this Tribunal for grant of a personal hearing, does not constitute a meaningful or reasoned consideration of the Applicant's case. According to learned counsel, the authority has essentially reiterated the same administrative grounds which had earlier been relied upon, without examining whether reasonable accommodation could be afforded to the Applicant in light of his mother's disability and his status as her sole caregiver.

In view of the aforesaid submissions, learned counsel for the Applicant prays Central Administrative Tribunal^{that the impugned transfer order dated 01.05.2025, the Speaking Order dated} 24.06.2024 and the subsequent order dated 02.07.2025 be quashed and set aside. Learned counsel further prays that the Respondents be directed to consider and accommodate the Applicant at Chennai or at any other station in its vicinity, so as to enable him to discharge his responsibilities towards his aged and ailing mother, while taking into consideration the applicable statutory provisions, Government instructions, the recommendations of the Hon'ble CCPwD, the Applicant's seniority and the availability of vacancies.

It is accordingly submitted that the Applicant's case deserves sympathetic and purposive consideration, particularly having regard to the continuing nature of his mother's medical condition, the Applicant's asserted status as her sole caregiver and the principle of reasonable accommodation under the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016.

On issuance on notice, learned counsel for the respondents file counter reply.

Per contra, learned counsel for the Respondents stated that the present Original Application is devoid of merit and has been filed as an afterthought with the sole object of challenging a lawful transfer order necessitated by administrative exigencies. It is submitted that the grounds urged by the Applicant are factually incorrect and legally untenable. Learned counsel stated that the disability certificate of the Applicant's mother, upon which reliance has been placed for seeking exemption from transfer, was furnished only shortly before institution of the present proceedings. According to the Respondents, the timing of submission of the said certificate raises a question regarding its applicability for claiming exemption under the transfer guidelines, particularly when the Applicant subsequently obtained a Unique Disability ID (UDID) card.

It is further stated that the DoP&T Office Memoranda dated 08.10.2018 and 02.02.2024 contain only discretionary guidelines and do not confer an absolute or enforceable right upon an employee to seek exemption from transfer merely on the ground of being a caregiver. The Respondents contend that they have acted in accordance with the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016, the Rules framed thereunder in 2017 and the applicable administrative instructions, while balancing the Applicant's personal circumstances against the administrative requirements of the organisation. Learned counsel stated that the Applicant is presently serving as a Drug Inspector under the Central Drugs Standard Control Organisation (CDSCO) and is posted at the Sub-Zone, Jammu.

It is stated that the genesis of the present Original Application lies in Case No. 14675/1022/2023, titled V. Kaviyarasan v. Central Drugs Standard Control Organization, instituted by the Applicant on 27.11.2023 before the Hon'ble Chief Commissioner for Persons with Disabilities (Divyangjan), Department of Empowerment of Persons with Disabilities (Divyangjan), Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment, Government of India (hereinafter referred to as the “CCPwD”). Learned counsel stated that, in the said proceedings, the Applicant had sought exemption from rotational transfers and a permanent posting at Chennai on the ground that his mother, Smt. Kalaimani, was suffering from Alzheimer's disease and 50% mental illness and that the Applicant was her sole caregiver.

Learned counsel further argues that the Respondents duly contested the proceedings before the CCPwD and filed their counter reply dated 28.12.2023 in response to the notice dated 06.12.2023 issued under Sections 75 and 77 of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016. It is stated that the grounds taken by the Respondents before the CCPwD are also relied upon in the present proceedings, particularly to demonstrate that the Applicant does not satisfy the criteria necessary to claim that he is the sole caregiver of his mother. According to the Respondents, the mere assertion that the Applicant is the sole caregiver cannot, by itself, create an indefeasible right to exemption from transfer.

Learned counsel stated that the nature of duties attached to the post of Drug Inspector itself necessitates rotational posting and transfer in the interest of effective discharge of regulatory functions. In this regard, reliance is placed upon Rules 51 and 52 of the Drugs and Cosmetics Rules, 1945, which prescribe the duties and functions of Drug Inspectors. The duties of a Drug Inspector include inspection of licensed drug and cosmetic manufacturing establishments, sales units, blood banks and other establishments dealing with drugs and cosmetics. Drug Inspectors are required to inspect such establishments to ensure compliance with prescribed standards relating to quality, safety, hygiene and regulatory requirements.

Learned counsel further stated that Drug Inspectors are empowered to take appropriate regulatory action, including collection of samples, initiation of action against spurious or substandard products and recommending or taking steps concerning licences, in accordance with law. They are also required to prepare detailed reports regarding samples collected and actions taken and submit the same to their superior authorities. It is further stated that Drug Inspectors exercise jurisdiction and perform regulatory functions across establishments falling within their assigned territorial areas and, in appropriate cases, assist the Central Drugs Standard Control Organisation in enforcement and inspection-related activities. Their duties, therefore, require field exposure and deployment at different locations.

According to learned counsel, having regard to the nature and sensitivity of the functions discharged by Drug Inspectors, rotational transfer and posting is an integral part of the administrative policy governing the cadre. The competent authority is accordingly required to periodically rotate officers in order to ensure effective regulatory administration and prevent prolonged posting at a particular station.

Central Administrative Tribunal^{23. Learned counsel argued that, consistent with the aforesaid policy and the} nature of his duties, the Applicant has himself been posted/transferred to different stations from time to time since his appointment as a Drug Inspector. It is contended that the Applicant has, therefore, been treated in accordance with the general transfer policy applicable to officers holding the post and that his present posting at Jammu is neither punitive nor discriminatory.

The Respondents accordingly submit that the Applicant cannot claim a vested right to remain posted at Chennai merely on the basis of his personal preference or family circumstances, particularly when the competent authority has taken a considered decision having regard to the administrative requirement of manpower at the Jammu Sub-Zone.

We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the pleadings and the material placed on record.

At the outset, learned counsel for the Applicant informs us that, in the earlier round of litigation, the Applicant had preferred O.A. No. 1888/2025 before this Tribunal. The said Original Application was disposed of by a Coordinate Bench vide order dated 21.05.2025, whereby the competent authority amongst the Respondents was directed to grant a personal hearing to the Applicant and to consider all the relevant facts and circumstances before passing a speaking order.

Pursuant to the aforesaid directions, the Applicant was afforded a personal hearing before the competent authority on 30.06.2025. Thereafter, the impugned order dated 02.07.2025 came to be passed, whereby the Applicant's request for posting at Chennai or a nearby station was not acceded to, primarily on the ground of administrative exigencies.

Thus, the issue before us is not merely whether the Applicant has a right to remain posted at a station of his choice. It is also necessary to examine whether, pursuant to the directions issued by the Coordinate Bench, the Applicant's representation has received due and meaningful consideration, particularly in the light of the circumstances relied upon by him, including the medical condition and disability of his aged mother and his claim of being her sole caregiver.

It is trite that transfer is an incident of service and an employee has no vested right to remain posted at a particular place or to seek posting at a station of his choice. The competent authority is ordinarily entitled to determine the place of posting of an employee in accordance with the applicable transfer policy and administrative requirements. Judicial review in such matters is consequently limited and interference is warranted only where the order is shown to be vitiated by mala fides, violation of statutory provisions, or patent arbitrariness.

At the same time, the present case has certain distinguishing features which Central Administrative Tribunal^{merit consideration. The Applicant has placed on record material relating to the} medical condition of his aged mother, who is stated to be suffering from Alzheimer's disease and to have been certified as a person with benchmark disability. The Applicant has also asserted that he is required to discharge caregiving responsibilities towards his mother and that there is no adequate alternative support available to her.

We also take note of the fact that the Applicant had earlier approached the Hon'ble Chief Commissioner for Persons with Disabilities (CCPwD) in this regard. The said proceedings culminated in an order dated 08.05.2024, wherein, inter alia, the Applicant's case was recommended to be considered with an open mind and empathetically, besides certain observations concerning formulation of an Equal Opportunity Policy. While such observations/recommendations do not, by themselves, confer an absolute right upon the Applicant to seek a particular place of posting, they constitute relevant circumstances which cannot be completely disregarded while considering his request.

We are equally conscious of the submission of the Respondents that the relevant DoP&T Office Memoranda and administrative instructions do not confer an absolute right of exemption from transfer upon an employee merely on the ground of being a caregiver. We find merit in the submission that the administrative authority is required to balance the personal circumstances of an employee with the exigencies and requirements of administration. The question, therefore, is not whether the Applicant is entitled to an automatic exemption from transfer, but whether his case deserves appropriate consideration within the framework of the applicable policy.

In the present case, the Applicant has already joined at the Jammu Sub-Zone pursuant to the impugned transfer and has been serving there. In these circumstances, and particularly having regard to the limited scope of judicial review in transfer matters, we are not inclined to quash the transfer order or issue a direction for the Applicant's immediate posting at Chennai. Such a course would amount to substituting our own decision for that of the competent administrative authority.

However, the fact that the Applicant has already joined at Jammu does not render his subsequent request for consideration at a more proximate station irrelevant. The Applicant has remained away from Chennai for a considerable period on account of his postings at different stations, and his mother is stated to be continuing to suffer from a progressive medical condition. These circumstances, in our considered view, warrant a fresh and sympathetic consideration of his case at the appropriate stage of the transfer exercise.

The Applicant has also placed reliance upon various instances of other officers allegedly having been retained at, or subsequently accommodated at, Central Administrative Tribunal^{Chennai notwithstanding their seniority, tenure or the applicable transfer policy. We} make it clear that we are not undertaking a comparative adjudication of the individual cases of those officers, as their respective service particulars and administrative circumstances may be different. Nevertheless, if the Applicant's plea regarding differential treatment is supported by the official records, the same may be appropriately examined by the competent authority while considering his case.

Having regard to the aforesaid circumstances, we are of the view that the Applicant's case deserves to be considered in the next transfer cycle, particularly for Chennai or a station in its vicinity. Such consideration shall take into account the medical condition and disability of his mother, the Applicant's caregiving responsibilities, the period for which he has remained away from Chennai, his seniority, the applicable transfer policy, the availability of suitable vacancies and the administrative requirements of the Department.

We accordingly direct the Respondents to give due preference and sympathetic consideration to the Applicant's request for posting at Chennai or at a nearby station in the next transfer exercise. The competent authority shall consider the case objectively and in the light of the observations/recommendations made by the CCPwD, as well as the relevant Government instructions and transfer policy.

We clarify that the aforesaid direction shall not be construed as conferring upon the Applicant an absolute or indefeasible right to a posting at Chennai. The Central Administrative Tribunal^{ultimate decision shall remain within the domain of the competent authority and} shall be subject to availability of an appropriate vacancy and overriding administrative exigencies. At the same time, the Applicant's request shall not be rejected mechanically or solely on the ground that he had previously served at Chennai.

Since the Applicant has already been afforded a personal hearing pursuant to the order dated 21.05.2025 passed in O.A. No. 1888/2025 and a speaking order dated 02.07.2025 has thereafter been passed, we do not consider it necessary to remit the matter once again for another round of hearing. Instead, the limited relief considered appropriate at this stage is to direct consideration of the Applicant's case with due preference in the next transfer cycle, in accordance with the applicable policy and the circumstances noticed herein.

In view of the aforesaid discussion and directions, we do not find sufficient ground to interfere with the impugned transfer order at this stage. The Original Application is accordingly disposed of with a direction to the Respondents to consider the Applicant's case for posting at Chennai or a nearby station, with due preference and sympathetic consideration, in the next transfer cycle, subject to availability of vacancy and administrative exigencies. There shall be no order as to costs.