Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Avai Kumar vs Defence on 21 November, 2025
1
Item No. 55 (C
(C-4) O.A. No. 1867/2023
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
PRINCIPAL BENCH: NEW DELHI
O.A. No. 1867/2023
Reserved on: 18.11
.11.2025
Pronounced on:21.111.2025
Hon'ble Mr. Manish Garg, Member (J)
Hon'ble Dr. Anand S. Khati
Khati,, Member (A)
Ayai Kumar
Aged about 56 years
S/o Late J. N. Choudhary
R/o Quarter No. 923, Block
Block-17
17
Lodhi Colony, New Delhi
Delhi-110003
110003
(Working as Civilian Switch Board Operator, Group-
Group-C)
...Applicant
(By Advocate: Mr. Amit Anand)
Anand
Versus
1. Union of India
Through Secretary
Ministry of Defence
South Block, New Del
Delhi-110001
110001
2. Signal Officer
Officer-in-Chief
Director General (Signals)
DG Sigs
Sigs-4 (C), A-Wing
Sena Bhawan, IHQ of MoD (Army)
DHQ PO, New Delhi
Delhi-110011
3. Commanding Officer
1 Army Headquarters Signal Regiment
Rao Tula Ram Marg
New Delhi
Delhi-110010
2
Item No. 55 (C
(C-4) O.A. No. 1867/2023
4. Officer
Officer-in-Charge
The Records Signals
Jabalpur
Jabalpur-482001
5. Secretary
Department of Personnel & Training
Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions
North Block, New Delhi
Delhi-110001
110001
6. Office of Chief Commissioner for Persons with
Disabilities (Divyangjan)
5th Floor, NISD Building, Plot No. G-2
G
Sector-10,
10, New Delhi
Delhi-110075
...Respondents
(By Advocate
dvocates:: Mr. Dilbag Singh)
Singh
3
Item No. 55 (C
(C-4) O.A. No. 1867/2023
ORDER
Hon'ble Mr. Manish Garg, Member (J) :
In the present Original Application, the applicant has prayed for the following reliefs:
"i. Quash and set aside the policy decision dated 22.09.2022 only, to the extent that it does not include the policy decision dated 08.10.2018 issued by the DoPT, which exempts the primary care givers from routine transfer.
ii. Quash and set aside the order da dated 14.06.2023 to the limited extent qua the applicant, who is at Sl. No. 16 of the said order;
iii. Award the cost in favour of the applicant and against the respondents;
iv. Pass such other further order(s) as this Hon'ble Tribunal may deem fit and prope proper in the facts and circumstances of the case."
2. Leraned counsel for the applicant submitted that the applicant is aggrieved by his transfer from Delhi to Jaipur, ordered o onn 14.06.2023. Simultaneously, the applicant has also placed a challenge to the policy cy decision dated 22.09.2022 on the ground that it is contrary to an earlier policy decision dated 08.10.2018, issued by the DoP&T. 2.1. Learned counsel further drew our attention to the various doc documents uments annexed with the OA and submitted 4 Item No. 55 (C (C-4) O.A. No. 1867/2023 that the wife of the applicant suffers from serious locomotor disability to tthe he extent of 80% and the applicant is her primary caregiver. Learned counsel further submitted that on account of impugned transfer, the domestic life of the applicant would be severely impacted and and the condition of his wife who is already suffering from 80% disability, may be further impaired.
3. Learned cou counsel nsel for the respondents submitted that the substantial relief in the matter has been granted as the transfer of the applicant has been not given effect.
4. To th the above submission of the learned counsel for the respondents, learned counsel for the applicant objected and stated that the main prayer prayer in the present O.A. is a challenge to the policy decision dated 22.09.2022 in light of DOPT OM dated 08.10.2018 and drew our attention to Clause (J) of the decision dated 22.09.2022, which reads as under:
"(J) Spouse Postings & Posting of CSBOs/Tele Supervisors with Disability/Having Dependents Dependents with Disability. DoP&T guidelines on postings of spouses at the same station and postings of disabled Government servants/parents of disabled children as amended from time to time will be followed."5
Item No. 55 (C (C-4) O.A. No. 1867/2023
5. Learned coun counsel sel for the applicant also drew our attention ention to the Office Memorandum dated 08.10.2018 with subject Exemption from the routine exercise of transfer/rotational transfer, which reads as under:
"Subject: Exemption from the routine exercise of transfer/rotational transfer.
Considering that transfer transfer of a Government employee who serves as the main care giver of persons with disability would have a bearing on the systematic rehabilitation of persons with disabilities, the Government issued OM of even number dated June 6, 2014 to exempt such employee from rom routine exercise of transfer/rotational transfer, subject to administrative constraints.
2. The scope of disability initially had covered (i) blindness or low vision (ii) hearing impairment (ii) locomotor disability or cerebral Palsy(iv) leprosy cured (v) mental retardation
(vi) mental illness and (vii) multiple disabilities, which subsequently, vide OMs of even number dated November 17, 2014 and January 5, 2016, was further extended to include 'Autism', 'Thalassemia' and 'Haemophilia'.
3. With the enactmenttment of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 on April 17, 2017, the following instructions are issued in supersession of the aboveabove-
mentioned OMs of even number dated June 6, 2014, November 17, 2014 and January 5, 2016 with regard to the eligibility bility for seeking exemption from routine exercise of transfer/rotational transfer:
(i) A Government employee who is a care care-giver of dependent daughter/son/parents/spouse/brother/sister with Specified Disability, as certified by the certifying authority as a Person with Benchmark Disability as defined under Section 2(r) of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 may be exempted from the routine exercise of transfer/rotational transfer subject to the administrative constratints.
(ii) The term "Specified "Specified Disability" as defined in the Schedule to the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016, covers (i) Locomotor disability including 6 Item No. 55 (C (C-4) O.A. No. 1867/2023 leprosy cured person, cerebral palsy, dwarfism, muscular dystrophy and Acid attack victims (ii) Blindness (iii) Low-vision Low vision (iv) Deaf (v) Hard of hearing (vi) Speech and language disabilities (vii) Intellectual disability including specific learning disabilities and autism spectrum disorder (viii) Mental illness (ix) Disability caused due to: (a) Neurological conditions such as Multiple sclerosis and Parkinson's disease (b) Blood disorder disorder-
Haemophilia, Thalassemia and Sickle cell cell-disease and (x) Multiple disabilities (more than one of the above specified disabilities) including deaf blindness and any other category of disabilities disabilities as may be notified by the Central Government.
(iii) The term 'Specified Disability' as defined herein is applicable as grounds only for the purpose of seeking exemption from routine transfer/rotational transfer by a Government employee, who is a care- giver of dependent Para 3(i) above. daughter/son/parents/spouse/brother/sister as stated in
4. All the Ministries/Departments are requested to bring these instructions to the notice of all concerned under their control."
5.1. Learned counsel for the applicant also submitted that the wife of the applicant is suffering from a locomotive disability to the extent of 80% and is in constant need of care and medical assistance, which the applicant, being her husband and primary caretaker, is required to provide. Learned counsel further highlighted the disability certificate of applicant's wife, which reads as under:
"CERTIFICATE FOR THE PERSONS WITH DISABILITIES This is to certify that Shri /Smt/ Kumari PUSHPA Son/wife/daughter/father/mother of W/O NO 153 15358862 EX HAV AVAI KUMAR Age 44 yrs old, male/female.7
Item No. 55 (C (C-4) O.A. No. 1867/2023 Registration No E-2103 2103 is a case of TRANFEMORAL AMPUTATION LEFT. He/she is physically disabled/ visual disabled/speech & hearing disabled and has 80% (Eighty percent) permanent (physical impairment/visua impairment/visual impairment/ speech & hearing impairment) in relation of his/her Left Lower Limb."
5.2. Learned counsel ffor or the applicant further submitted that the respondents have issued the impugned order dated 14.06.2023 (Annexure (Annexure-A-1),
1), whereby the applicant, who is at Sl. No. 16, has been transferred from Army Headquarters Signal Regiment, Rao Tula Ram Marg, New Delhi, to South West Command Signal Regiment, Regiment, Jaipur.
He further submitted that the said transfer has not yet been given effect to.
5.3. Lear Learned counsel additionally itionally submitted that the existing policy does not address the issues covered under the Office Memorandum dated 08.10.2018 and the provisions of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Disabilities Act, 2016. He contended that the definitions and protections under the he said Act must be interpreted holistically, keeping in view the requirement of providing reasonable accommodation to a caregiver.
6. Opposing the grant of relief, learned counsel counsel for the respondents relied upon the averments made in the 8 Item No. 55 (C (C-4) O.A. No. 1867/2023 counter affidavit affidavit.. Learned counsel counsel for the respondents relied upon the decision rendered by the Single Bench of this Tribunal in O.A. No.2161/2024 pronounced on 07.04.2025 titled Satish Kumar Badhalia vs. Union of India and Ors., which reads as under:
CONCLUSION "CONCLUSION
26. For the reasons stated hereinabove and legal preposition settled by catena of judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court. The applicant has failed to establish infringement of any legal right, violation of any statutory rules of transfer/posting, malafide exercise exercise of power or impugned Posting/Transfer Order dated 14.02.2024, order dated 27.05.2023 [Annexure A-1 A 1 (Colly)] and posting order dated 04.05.2024 from Fire Bridge to 26 AMN Coy (Annexure A-2)
2) are without jurisdiction.
27. The impugned Posting/Transfer Order dated 14.02.2024, order dated 27.05.2023 [Annexure A A-1 (Colly)] and posting order dated 04.05.2024 from Fire Bridge to 26 AMN Coy (Annexuге А-2) А 2) so far relates to applicant, in the present OA are upheld, do not suffer from any infirmity and remain unassailable, unassailable, so also not affected any of the service conditions of the applicant.
28. Resultantly, the Original Application being devoid of merit is accordingly dismissed.
29. There shall be no order as to costs.
30. As a sequel thereof, pending Miscellaneous Application(s), plication(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of." 6.1. Learned counsel for the respondents also relie relied upon the decis decision ion rendered by the Jaipur Bench of this Tribunal in O.A. No.419/2023 and Batch dated 04.04.2024 titled Mamta Knojiya vs. Union of India and Ors., highlighting the following paragraphs:
9
Item No. 55 (C (C-4) O.A. No. 1867/2023 "2. Learned counsels for the parties have chosen to argue the O.A. No. 280/2023 as a main case. This O.A. has been filed by the All India Civilian Switch Board Operators and Telephone Operators Union (Rajasthan (Rajasthan Branch). The issues taken by the applicants herein have earlier been adjudicated by this Bench of the Tribunal in OA No. 474/2023 (Bharat Yadav vs. UOI & Ors.) and OA No. 476/2023 (Pooja Kumari vs. UOI & Ors.). However, in the present O.A., apart from those issues and grounds, some additional grounds have been taken. The main amongst the other grounds is the challenge to the final Rotational Transfer Policy dated 06.12.2022 (Annexure A/1) and dated 22.09.2022 (Annexure A/1A), 30.11.2022 and 27.09.2022.
3. In short, the applicants are Civil Switch Board Operators (CSBO) working with Signal Corps of Army. The applicants have challenged the Rotational Transfer Policy for CSBOs mainly on two grounds; firstly competence of the authority who has framed policy and secondly, objective. They have said that the Senior Record Officer is not the competent authority to frame the above mentioned transfer policy. They have said that in fact they are governed by Army Order No 12/2020/MP-4 12/2020/MP 4 issued by Adjutant General. They They have further claimed that either their transfers are governed by the above Army Order or if any transfer policy is to be framed then it is Adjutant General who is the competent authority. The other ground taken by them is that this is not a "sensitive post"
post" as such there cannot be a rotational transfer policy qua them. In other words, they4. On the other hand, the respondents in their reply have stated that the CSBO has been identified as "sensitive post". They have further averred that the post of CSBO is s liable to serve anywhere in India with field service liability. The respondents have also stated that as per Central Vigilance Commission circular dated 11.09.2013, they are required to identify the "sensitive post" and the staffs working on the said posts posts are required to be rotated every 2--3 3 years. The CSBOs are manning army exchange and by virtue of the nature of the task, CSBOs are handling telephone calls of Army Commanders at all levels including Field Commanders thereby having access to classified information information such as names, appointment of army officers, fighting formations giving out the equipment and weapon profile, the capabilities which are crucial to national security, which is the reason to declare CSBOs as "sensitive post".
**************************************** ******************** 10 Item No. 55 (C (C-4) O.A. No. 1867/2023
5. In their reply, the respondents have further stated that as per Para-1 1 of the Employment Notice "applications are invited for recruitment of the following posts from citizen of India, who are willing to serve anywhere in India"
wasissued. Pursuant to which, the applicants applied, were selected and granted employment. Accordingly, CSBOs are liable to serve anywhere in India and cannot seek permanent posting at one place only.
*********************************
19. To summarize therefore, therefore, it can be inferred from perusal and analysis hereinabove, in particular the authority of the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, that the position related to transfer of government employees is already well-settled well settled in law and clearly emerges to be that (i) In services with liability to be transferred, the employee does not have any vested right in a particular place of posting; (ii) Scope of judicial review is limited and interference with an order of transfer cannot be done lightly, because the courts cannot substitute their own decision in the matter of transfer; (iii) Order of transfer made even in transgression of administrative guidelines cannot also be interfered with, as they do not confer any legally enforceable rights, unless vitiated by mala fides or made in violation of any statutory provision;
(iv) Even administrative guidelines for regulating transfers or containing transfer policies at best may afford an opportunity to the officer or servant concerned to approach their higher authorities ties for redress, but cannot have the consequence of depriving or denying the competent authority to transfer a particular officer/servant to any place in public interest and as is found necessitated by exigencies of service; (v) Transfer orders issued by the competent authority do not violate any legal rights even if a transfer order is passed in violation of executive instructions or orders; and the courts ordinarily should not interfere with the order instead affected party should approach the higher authorities authorities in the department.
20. In the light of the above, all the present Original Applications deserve to be dismissed being devoid of any merits and, accordingly, the same are hereby dismissed.
No order as to costs."
6.2. Learned counsel further submitted submitt that the applicant was initially appointed as Civilian Switch Board Operator 11 Item No. 55 (C (C-4) O.A. No. 1867/2023 (CSBO), Grade Grade-ll ll at South Western Comd Sig Regt on 19.06.2006 and posted to 1 Army HQ Sig Regt on 12.12.2006 on Compassionate Ground. The Government of India, Ministry of Perso Personnel, nnel, Public Grievances & Pensions, Department of Personnel & Training Office Memorandum F No 42011/3/2014 42011/3/2014-Estt.
Estt. (res) dated 08.10.2018 issued instruction on Exemption from the routine exercise of transfer/rotational transfer. As per Para 3 (i) of the said policy "A government employees who is a care care-giver daughter/son/parents/brother/sister of with dependent Specified Disability, as certified by the certifying authority as a Person with Benchmark Disability as defined under Section 2(r) of the Rights of Persons Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 may be exempted from the routine exercise of transfer/rotational transfer subject to the administrative constraints". Learned counsel further submitted that the Rotational Transfer Policy is applicable to all Group 'A', 'B 'B' & 'C' employees, as per provisions of the Government of India, Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances & Pensions, Department of Personnel & Training Office Memorandum No 11013/10/2013 11013/10/2013-Estt.Adated Estt.Adated 02.07.2015 and as per 12 Item No. 55 (C (C-4) O.A. No. 1867/2023 Schedule Schedule-1 of SRO-92 92 dated 26.02.1957.
26.02.1957. The same has been promulgated by competent authority as per provisions of Govt of India policy on the subject. 6.3. Learned counsel further submitted that the Rotational Transfer Policy is formulated as per instructions of Department of Personnel & Training Training Office Memorandum No 11013/10/2013 11013/10/2013-Estt.A Estt.A dated 02.07.2015 vide DG Sigs/Sigs Sigs/Sigs-4(c) 4(c) letter No B/44973/Posting/Transfer (RTP)/Sigs (RTP)/Sigs-4 4 (c) dated 22.09. 2022 and Implementation Instructions was issued vide Signals Records letter No 3653/CA 3653/CA-6/T-1/RTP/53 dated ted 06 Dec 2022. The following are clearly mentioned in the said Implementation Instructions ::-
(a) Posting Choices (Para 11f). CSBOs/Tele Supervisors will submit their choice of next posting (maximum three) to Signals Records for consideration of request a minimum six months prior to completion of tenure, i.e. upto two and half years tenure in the current establishment /station. In case of non non-receipt receipt of choice within laid down timeline i.e. by first week of Jan and Jul, posting order will be issued as per availability of vacancy and no representation will be entertained. The Competent Authority, after considering individual's request vis vis-à à-vis vis availability of vacancies organizational interest, will decide and issue transfer order. Organizational interest will will always take precedence over personal requirements.
(b) Last Leg Postings to Choice Stations (Para 11g).13
Item No. 55 (C (C-4) O.A. No. 1867/2023 Individual may apply for the last leg posting (LLP) to choice stations with residual service of maximum four years. Number of CSBOs on LLP in an establishment establishment will be limited to 15% of the authorised manpower of the establishment. In case of multiple applications for lesser number of vacancies, LLP will be accorded in order of seniority of receipt of application at Records. LLP is not a right and will be considered subject fulfilment of other conditions. Organizational requirement will take precedence over everything else". 6.4. Learned counsel highlighted that there is only one Military exchange at Delhi station, which is run by the 1 Army HQ Sig Regt Regt.. The applicant was posted at 1 Army HQ Sig Regt, since 2006 and completed 17 years of service at Delhi station. As per Rotational Transfer Policy (RTP) tenure of CSBO/Tele Supervisors in any establishment will be limited to maximum of three years and minimum minimum two years.
ears. The case of the applicant has been considered leniently by the department to accommodate him in other units/establishment in the same station (i.e. Delhi or Delhi NCRs) but due to non non-availability availability of vacancies subject to his post in the same station, posting of the applicant has been een considered to the nearest place to Delhi station i.e South Western Comd Sig Regt, Jaipur where med medical facilities and Govt accommodations are available. 14 Item No. 55 (C (C-4) O.A. No. 1867/2023
7. In rejoinder to the arguments put forth by the learned counsel for the respondents, learned counsel sel for the applicant relied upon the decision rendered by the Allahabad Bench of this Tribunal in O.A. No. 565/2020 deided on 15.10.2020.
7.1. Further, learned counsel for the applicant also placed reliance upon the office order dated 28.11.2024, which reads ads as under:
"POSTING/TRANSFER POSTING/TRANSFER AGAINST ROTATIONAL TRANSFER POLICY (RTP) FOR CSBOS UNDER GS BRANCH COMMON ROSTER 1 2023 Ref to this Die letter No B/44793/Posting/Transfer(RTPySigs 4(c) dated 20 Oct 2 This is to inform that the restrictions on implementation of Rotational Transfer Policy (RTP) as imposed vide this Dte letter under reference, have been lifted in consonance with the directions of the Hon'ble Raksha Mantri dated 12 Nov 2024 3 In view of the above, the following fresh directions ar are issued
(a) CSBO Cadre employees should be sensitized that all applications/representations regarding choice posting, spouse ground posting, disability/having dependents with disability, extension of tenure and last leg posting, should be submitted afresh h through proper channel, with the recommendation of the respective CSO Comds/Comdt Ests to Records Signals for further consideration NO application/representation should be directly addressed to this Dte or Higher Dignitaries/Authorities. Any violation in this regard will be dealt as per CCS(CC&A) Conduct Rules 15 Item No. 55 (C (C-4) O.A. No. 1867/2023
(b) All requests for compassionate ground posting as per AO 12/2020/MP-4, 4, should be forwarded to Records Signals, with the approval of concerned CSO Comds/Comdt Ests
(c) No application/representation application/representation will be held back by the concerned unit/est and should be forwarded to Records Signals for their further consideration Reasons for not recommending should also be mentioned along with the application/representation.
(d) forwarded to Records Signals, from from now on. Quarterly Report of authorised/held state of CSBOs, as per PEWE will be
(e) Fresh posting orders, with tentative date of move, will be issued by Records Signals, in due course.
(f) Necessary budgetary provisions be catered for Travelling Allowance ance and Composite Transfer Grant, as per TA Rules, from the concerned authorities, well in advance.
For info and compliance please."
please
8. Heard learned counsel for the respective parties and perused the pleadings available on record.
9. ANALYSIS :
9.1. We may outrightly reject the contention of the learned counsel for the respondents that, merely because the Transfer Policy has been upheld by two Benches of this Tribunal, as highlighted above, the present O.A. is therefore liable to be dismissed.
9.2 2 We have examined the judgment cited by the learned counsel for the respondents, which has no application to 16 Item No. 55 (C (C-4) O.A. No. 1867/2023 the facts of the present case. The present matter squarely falls within the scope of the OM dated 08.10.2018. The respondents have not denied that the OM is in force and applicable to them as well. They have raised only technical pleas regarding the applicability of certain clauses in the OM. It is also noted that the posting of the applicant is not to a sensitive post.
9.3. The wife of the applicant is a permanently disabled person with 80% disability, and it is the sole responsibility of the applicant to look after and care for her. Accordingly, his status falls within the meaning of the term "care "care-giver"
as defined under Section 2(d) of the the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016. On account of his wife's disability, she qualifies as a "person with benchmark disability" and a "person with disability" as per the definitions in Sections 2(r) and 2(s) of the Act, 2016. If the Competent Authority uthority of the respondents has transferred the applicant in compliance with the Transfer Policy/Guidelines, which provide that an employee who has completed ten years of service at one place shall be transferred transferred from one zone to another, the provisions of Clause J of the same policy 17 Item No. 55 (C (C-4) O.A. No. 1867/2023 cannot be ignored. Clause J must be read in consonance with the OM dated 08.10.2018, which exempts the transfer/posting of a spouse or caregiver of a person with benchmark or long long-term term disability from routine/rotational transferr under the DOPT Guidelines. The DOPT Guidelines clearly provide that such a government employee may be exempted from routine/rotational transfer, subject to administrative constraints. A routine/rotational transfer undertaken strictly in compliance with these these guidelines cannot be treated as an administrative constraint. Further, where the policy provides two separate sets of guidelines, the one conferring a beneficial treatment must prevail, as it is designed to serve a specific purpose. Non-compliance Non compliance with h such beneficial provisions could cause irreparable harm to a person, which generally cannot be compensated monetarily.
9.4. The concept of rotational transfers is intended for employees who are not covered or protected under any compassionate or benefici beneficial al policy. However, where an employee has been extended protection under such a policy, the same cannot be ignored unless there exists a 18 Item No. 55 (C (C-4) O.A. No. 1867/2023 compelling administrative reason to transfer the employee from one zone to another. The emphasis must be on assessing tthe he impact of the transfer on the well-being well being and continued rehabilitation of the disabled dependent, rather than focusing merely on the personal inconvenience of the caregiver.
9.5. In Net Ram Yadav v. State of Rajasthan & Ors.
[arising out of S.L.P. (C) ... of 2022, Diary No. 2738 of 2020], decided on 11.08.2022, the Hon'ble Apex Court observed as under:
"31. One of the hindrances/disadvantages faced by the physically disabled persons is the inability to move freely and easily. In consideration of the obstacles obstacles encountered by persons with disabilities, the State has issued the said notification/circular dated 20th July 2000 for posting disabled persons to places of their choice, to the extent feasible. The object of this benefit to the physically disabled is to, o, inter alia, enable the physically disabled to be posted at a place where assistance may readily be available. The distance from the residence may be a relevant consideration to avoid commuting long distances. The benefit which has been given to the disabled disabled through the Circular/Government Order cannot be taken away by subjecting the exercise of the right to avail of the benefit on such terms and conditions, as would render the benefit otiose.
32. Since there is no challenge in the Writ Petition to the vires of the Explanation, we do not deem it necessary to interfere with the same in this appeal. We hold that the said Explanation can have no manner of application to handicapped candidates who seek transfer to a place near their ordinary residence in terms of a beneficial Office Order/Circular issued for their benefit.19
Item No. 55 (C (C-4) O.A. No. 1867/2023
33. With the greatest of respect, both the Single Bench as also the Division Bench of the High Court have overlooked the scope and ambit of the Explanation which has no application in the State e to seniority. In our view, the High Court should have been more sensitive and empathetic to the plight of a physically disabled. The High Court erred in law in overlooking the difference between physically disabled persons impaired in their movement and normal able-bodied bodied persons. The High Court failed to appreciate that treatment of unequals as equals ignoring their special needs violates Article 14 of the Constitution.
34. The appeal is, accordingly, allowed. The judgments and orders of the Division Bench Bench and the Single Bench are set aside. The Office Order No. Shivira/Ma/Sanstha/Vari/K-/11968(2)/Diwesh/Purush/ Shivira/Ma/Sanstha/Vari/K /11968(2)/Diwesh/Purush/ Ra.Star/ Naman Vilo/Jodhpur/2004/15 dated 11th September 2007 whereby the seniority of the Appellant has been downgraded is set aside and quashe quashed. The Respondents are directed to restore the seniority of the Appellant in the State to the original position, taking into account the service rendered by him in Hanumangarh."
9.6 .6 The OM dated 08.10.2018 has been issued in consonance with the provisions of the 2016 Act, which is a special enactment and, therefore, must prevail over the general provisions of the transfer policy. Ordinarily, transfer is an exigency and incidence of service, and courts do not routinely interfere with transfer orders. However However, where a transfer can be avoided due to a specific and compelling reason, the Competent Authority, as a model employer, is expected to consider such circumstances objectively. At the same time, a transfer must not be punitive in nature. In the present case, case, directing the 20 Item No. 55 (C (C-4) O.A. No. 1867/2023 applicant pplicant to join at Jaipur would cause irreparable mental hardship to him, as he would be unable to discharge his responsibilities as a caregiver to his wife. Such a situation would also result in irreparable mental distress.
distress
10. CONCLUSI CONCLUSION :
10.1. In view of the above discussions, and considering the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, the p present OA is allowed and tthe he impugned order(s), insofar as they relate to the applicant, are quashed and set aside.
10.2. Pending M.A.s, if any, shall stand disposed of. No costs.
(Anand S. Khati Khati) (Manish Garg) Member (A) Member (J) /sb/as/