Central Administrative Tribunal - Jabalpur
Sushma Dixit vs Kvs on 1 May, 2025
1
(Reserved on 28.03.2025)
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
JABALPUR BENCH,
JABALPUR
Original Application No. 637 of 2024
Jabalpur, this the 01st day of May, 2025
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AKHIL KUMAR SRIVASTAVA, JUDICIAL MEMBER
Smt. Sushma Dixit, D/o Late Vallabh Kumar Dwivedi, Post - TGT
(Biology) Teacher in KVS, aged about 53 years, R/o 07, Love Huts
opposite Chinar Woodland, Chunabhatti, Bhopal, M.P 462042.
.......Applicant
Advocate for the applicant: Shri Aryan Urmaliya, holding brief of Shri
Kabeer Paul
VERSUS
1. Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan (KVS) through its Commissioner, Add -
18 Institutional Area, Shaheed Jeet Singh Marg, New Delhi - 110001.
2. The Assistant Commissioner (Estt.) II/III, Kendriya Vidyalaya
Sangathan (KVS), 18 Institutional Area, Shaheed Jeet Singh Marg,
New Delhi - 110001.
3. The Principal, P.M. Shri Kendriya Vidyalaya No. 1, Bhopal, Tehsil and
District - Bhopal - 462042.
4. Ms. Mamta Srivastava, T.G.T (Biology) at P.M Shri Kendriya Vidyalaya
No. 1, Bhopal, Tahsil and District Bhopal, M.P, C/o Principal, P.M. Shri
Kendriya Vidyalaya No. 1, Bhopal, Tehsil and District - Bhopal -
462042 . ......Respondents
Advocate for the respondents: Ms. Nidhi Sonkar, holding brief of
Shri Manish Verma
ANAND
2025.05.02
PRAKASH
15:59:01+05'30'
DUBEY
Page 1 of 13
2
ORDER
By means of the instant original application filed under section 19 of Administrative Tribunals Act 1985, the applicant has prayed for setting aside the order dated 25.06.2024 (Annexure A-1), order dated 26.06.2024 (Annexure A-2) and order dated 25.06.2024 (Annexure A-7) and direction to the respondents to post the applicant at any of the School within Bhopal District or in alternative Sehore/Vidisha/Raisen which are close by comparatively.
2. The applicant while working as TGT (Biology) at Kendriya Vidyalaya No. 1, Bhopal, was transferred to Kendriya Vidyalaya, Ratlam vide order dated 25.06.2024 and after relieving vide order dated 26.06.2024 (Annexure A-2), she had joined at transferred place on 29.06.2024 although she had already preferred a representation dated 27.06.2024 (Annexure A-10) before the Commissioner, K.V.S for redressal of her grievance. Despite the aforesaid fact, the applicant is challenging the validity of her transfer on the ground that the action of the respondents is arbitrary, malafide and against the rules and law.
3. The learned counsel for the applicant submitted that pursuant the option asked by the respondents, the applicant gave her options for nearby places of her preference namely Sehore, Vidisha and Raisen but the respondents transferred her from P.M. Shri Kendriya Vidyalaya No. 1, ANAND 2025.05.02 PRAKASH 15:59:01+05'30' DUBEY Page 2 of 13 3 Bhopal to Kendriya Vidyalaya, Ratlamn on administrative grounds vide order dated 25.06.2024 (Annexure A-1). Learned counsel for the applicant argued that applicant's child suffers from a permanent intellectual disability exceeding 70% (Annexure A-4), and is currently undergoing treatment at the Composite Regional Centre for Persons with Disabilities (CRC), Bhopal and since the required medical facilities are not available at Ratlam, her child shall be deprived of his treatment and education. The applicant's son is also under the dedicated care and supervision of Digdarshika Institute of Rehabilitation and Research, a specialized school focused on his rehabilitation.
4. Learned counsel for the applicant also alleged malafide against the respondents and submitted that the private respondent had been posted at Agar Malwa vide order dt. 06.11.2023 but since as per Clauses of the Policy, she had not completed the requisite years to be eligible to seek a transfer and her case ought not to have been considered to displace the applicant. Learned counsel for the applicant also referred to the DOPT Office Memorandum dated 08.10.2018 (Annexure A-9) and submitted that a government employee taking care of the disabled person and strongly supports the rights of disabled family members have been exemputed from transfer/rotational transfer. Clause 3 (i) of the aforesaid O.M. is reproduced below:
ANAND 2025.05.02 PRAKASH 15:59:01+05'30' DUBEY Page 3 of 13 4 "(3) (i) A Government employee who is a 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 constraints."
5. Learned counsel for the applicant further submitted that the case of the applicant and her son is also covered by the provisions of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016. Thus, the action of the Respondents is malicious in as much as the action has been taken without any justifiable reason and in violation of the Transfer Policy as well as the Office Memorandum of 2018, which exempted the applicant from any kind of transfer due to the peculiar circumstances.
6. Learned counsel for the applicant further submitted that since child of the applicant is a permanently disabled person having 70% disability and to look-after and take care of him is the sole responsibility of the applicant who is a single parent and comes within the meaning of term 'care-giver' as defined under Section 2 (d) of the Act, 2016 and there is no reason to implement the Rotational Transfer policy ignoring the DOPT Guidelines dated 08.10.2018. He contended that the rotational transfers are meant for a person who has not been protected by any ANAND 2025.05.02 PRAKASH 15:59:01+05'30' DUBEY Page 4 of 13 5 compassionate or beneficial policy but if any employee has been protected from any beneficial or compassionate policy, the same may not be ignored unless there is any administrative reason to transfer such person from one zone to another zone.
7. Learned counsel further submitted that while normally the transfer is an exigency/incidence of service and no courts are ordinarily interfered with the transfer orders but if such transfer may be avoided for any specific compelling reason and that reason is unavoidable, the Competent Authority being model employer should consider such condition sympathetically and rationally and prayed that the original application may be allowed and the applicant may be given reliefs.
8. Per contra, the respondents have filed reply refuting the claim of the applicant. The respondents have contended that the applicant has all India transfer liability and since vide order dated 25.06.2024, several teachers have been transferred following the rotational transfer policy, thus there is no arbitrariness or malafide intention while passing the order. The respondents have further submitted that the new KVS Transfer Policy was notified on 10.06.2024 and accordingly a set tentative calendar of activities was also uploaded on the KVS website vide Notification dated 01.06.2024, 10.06.2024 & 13.06.2024, wherein ANAND 2025.05.02 PRAKASH 15:59:01+05'30' DUBEY Page 5 of 13 6 timelines were indicated for the opening and receiving of online applications through the KVS Transfer portal and the process of posting of employees to their desired stations is automated and is based on the Points system (Transfer Counts/Displacement Counts) of each employee against other claimants (for the same post/vacancy/station, etc.). Safeguards and provisions for various categories of employee i.e. Persons with Disabilities (PwD), Death of Family Person (DFP), Medical Grounds (MDG), Less than Three Years (LTR) to Retire, Spouse Grounds, Female employee, etc. have been given due consideration in the Transfer Policy 2024 and accordingly, in the transfer process, as per available vacancy & eligibility. Since the applicant has completed tenure of more than 17 years stay at normal station as defined in the referred KVS Transfer Policy 2024.
9. Learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the applicant has been transferred in terms of Para 2 (II) (A), (b) (iii) of Part-1-A of the KVS Transfer Policy 2024 which inter-alia provides transfer of employees on Displacement to accommodate the employees falling under PwD/MDG/DFP/LTR. Since, the applicant has already joined at transferred place on 29.06.2024. Learned counsel for the respondents further submitted that as per instructions under Annual Transfer Policy- 2024, all employees were requested to go through the KVS Transfer ANAND 2025.05.02 PRAKASH 15:59:01+05'30' DUBEY Page 6 of 13 7 Policy carefully before starting the process of filling the online application and the applicant has filled choice stations on her own willing. Thereafter, a verified copy of the data by the applicant as well as controlling officer was also provided to the applicant, and no objection was raised by the applicant on or before last date of submission of transfer application form i.e. 18.06.2024. Learned counsel for the respondents further submitted that the Transfer Policy-2024 is applicable to all transferable employees of KVS working in KVs and other offices under the administrative jurisdiction of the KVS and transfer to a desired location or post cannot be claimed as a matter of right. Since, the applicant has already remain posted at Bhopal for more than 17 years, and due to organizational interest, the applicant was transferred on the administrative ground and thus, prayed that the OA may be dismissed.
10. On the other hand, learned counsel for the applicant submitted that despite filling out the transfer form mentioning therein the choice station, arbitrarily the applicant was not accommodated at any of her preferred choice stations. The respondents have also failed to provide any evidence of adherence to due process or consideration of the applicant's critical factors in ensuring just and reasonable transferring the applicant under Transfer Policy 2024, on displacement grounds to accommodate employees falling under PwD/MDG/DFP/LTR and her ANAND 2025.05.02 PRAKASH 15:59:01+05'30' DUBEY Page 7 of 13 8 transfer to KV Ratlam disrupts her son's essential care, violating the DoPT OM dated 08.10.2018 and the RPWD Act 2016.
11. Heard Shri Aryan Urmaliya, holding brief of Shri Kabeer Paul, learned counsel for the applicant and Ms. Nidhi Sonkar, holding brief of Shri Manish Verma, learned counsel for the respondents and perused the pleadings.
12. The basic facts of the case that pursuant to order dated 25.06.2024, the applicant has already joined the transferred place of posting i.e. Ratlam on 29.06.2024. It is also not disputed that the after her transfer, the applicant preferred a representation dated 27.06.2024 raising her grievance in detail (Annexure A-10).
13. The applicant has contended that as per the transfer policy, despite filling out the transfer form mentioning therein the choice station, arbitrarily the applicant was not accommodated at any of her preferred choice stations. On the other hand, the respondents have contended that the process of posting of employees to their desired station is automated and is based on the point system of each employee against other claimants for the same post/vacancy/station etc and since the applicant has completed tenure of more than 17 years at Bhopal, therefore, she ANAND 2025.05.02 PRAKASH 15:59:01+05'30' DUBEY Page 8 of 13 9 has been transferred in terms of Para 2(II)(A) b)(iii) of Part-1-A of the Transfer Policy 2024 which inter alia provides transfer of employees on displacement to accommodate the employees falling under PwD/MDG/DFP/LTR. The respondents have further admitted that looking to the disability of her child, she has not been transferred for more than 17 years and now she has been transferred at Ratlam where a Government Medical College with all facilities to take care of her son is available.. Therefore, the applicant has been transferred on administrative grounds. The respondents have also cited several judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court including the case of E.P. Royappa Vs. State of Tamil Nadu - (1974) 4 SCC 3, Shilpi Bose (Mrs.) and Ors. State of Bihyar and Ors - 1991 Supp(2) SCC 659 and U.O.I & Ors Vs. S.L. Abbas - (1993) 4 SCC 357 and submitted that the transfer is a condition of service and the employee has not vested right to get a posting at a particular place . It is within the exclusive domain of the employer to determine as to what place and for how long the services of a particular employee are required and the court does not have the power to annul the transfer order only on the ground that it will cause personal inconvenience to the employee or his family members or children.
ANAND 2025.05.02 PRAKASH 15:59:01+05'30' DUBEY Page 9 of 13 10
14. It is not disputed that the applicant's child is suffering from a permanent intellectual disability exceeding 70% and thus the applicant being a care-giver of her son is covered by the provisions of Right of Persons with Disabilities Act 2016. Clause (d) of para 2 with heading "Definitions" provides as under: -
"(d). 'care-giver' means any person including parents and other family Members who with or without payment provides care, support or assistance to a person with disability;
(I) 'high support' means an intensive support, physical, psychological and otherwise which may be required by a person with benchmark disability for daily activities, to take independent and informed decision to access facilities and participating in all areas of life including education, employment, family and community life and treatment and therapy......."
15. In the present case, the respondents in their reply and in para 13 of the written submission have admitted that due to disability of applicant's child, she has not been transferred for more than 17 years and undisputedly, still the applicant is facing with the same situation the applicant's son is under continuous treatment and have to attend regular speech therapy sessions for his rehabilitation at Composite Regional Centre for Persons with Disabilities, Bhopal. Thus, I am of the considered ANAND 2025.05.02 PRAKASH 15:59:01+05'30' DUBEY Page 10 of 13 11 opinion that certainly the applicant is entitled for protection provided under the Right of Persons with Disabilities Act 2016 and various notifications issued by the Government of India either under the earlier Act of 1995, which stands repealed on account of enactment of the Act of 2016. No reason has been assigned for accommodating respondent no. 4 nor has any reason been assigned for transferring out the applicant from Bhopal to Ratlam except taking a ground that transfer is a routine transfer done on administrative ground.
16. The judgment relied by the respondents in the case of Union of India Vs. S.L. Abbas (Supra) is of no help to the respondents as the transfer order is in violation of the executive instructions issued by the Government of India and the applicant enjoys certain benefits flowing out of the Act of 1995 and the Act of 2016. It is settled that no employee can dispute that the transfer is an incident of service and no courts are ordinarily interfered with the transfer orders but if such transfer may be avoided for any specific compelling reasons and that reason is unavoidable, the competent authority being a model employer should consider such condition sympathetically. At the same time, the transfer may not be punitive in nature and in the present case, transfer of the applicant would cause irreparable mental pain to her and he would not be able to look after and take care of her son with 70% mental disability. ANAND 2025.05.02 PRAKASH 15:59:01+05'30' DUBEY Page 11 of 13 12
17. Further, the fact remains that the transfer has to be done keeping in view the various policies issued from time to time and it should not be vitiated by malafides or should not be contrary to the notification issued by the Government of India or by other authority. Further, it is also noted that the respondents have brought nothing on record any adverse service record of the applicant during her 17 years of service at Bhopal. Therefore, while transferring the applicant, the respondents did not kept in mind this aspect and without taking into consideration the fact that she has a son with 70% mental disability and she is a single mother displaced her by posting Ms. Mamta Srivastava (respondent no. 4) on administrative ground. The respondents have also not considered any of the choice station which the applicant submitted as per the Transfer Policy of the respondents and had the respondents considered her request for posting her any of the choice station, her grievance might be redressed. Thus, the transfer order dated 25.06.2024 (Annexure A-1) deserves to be quashed only with respect to Sushma Dixit (the applicant).
18. Accordingly, the Original Application No. 634/2024 is allowed. The transfer order dated 25.06.2024 (Annexure A-1) only with respect to Sushma Dixit (the applicant) is quashed. Consequently, the relieving order dated 26.06.2024 (Annexure A-2) is also quashed. Since, ANAND 2025.05.02 PRAKASH 15:59:01+05'30' DUBEY Page 12 of 13 13 in place of the applicant, the respondent no. 4 has already joined, therefore, the respondents are directed to accommodate the applicant at Bhopal or any suitable place of her choice submitted by the applicant herself and pass appropriate order to that effect forthwith preferably within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. The applicant is also directed to submit her joining at a place where she is posted in compliance of this order.
19. There shall be no order as to costs.
(Akhil Kumar Srivastava) Judicial Member Anand...
ANAND 2025.05.02 PRAKASH 15:59:01+05'30' DUBEY Page 13 of 13