Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Rajesh Kumar vs Department Of Water Resources, River ... on 28 April, 2025
1
O.A. No. 4933/2024
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
PRINCIPAL BENCH: NEW DELHI
O.A. No. 4933/2024
Reserved on: 08.04.2025
Pronounced on: 28.04.2025
HON'BLE SHRI AJAY PRATAP SINGH, MEMBER (J)
Rajesh Kumar s/o Om Prakash
Q.No. 377, Sector 3,
R.K. Puram, Delhi - 110 022.
...Applicant
-Versus-
1. Union of India through its Secretary,
Ministry of Jal Sakti,
Department of Water Resources, RD & GR,
New Delhi.
2. Central Water Commission through its Chairman,
Sewa Bhawan,
R.K. Puram,
New Delhi.
...Respondents
For Applicant: Mr. Udhav Pratap, Advocate
For Respondents: Mr. S.N. Verma, Senior CGSC.
ORDER
AS PER AJAY PRATAP SINGH, MEMBER JUDICIAL:
Applicant is a Research Officer in Scientific Cadre (Group-A) in River Data Compilation Directorate-II, Central Water Commission, New Delhi, by means of this Original Application has invoked the jurisdiction of this Tribunal under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 seeking following main relief(s) [as extracted from the OA] reads as -
"a. Quash the Transfer Order No.I/179685/2024 File No. A.22017/83/2020-ESTT-XI dated 26.07.2024 passed by the respondent qua the applicant which is mentioned at Sr.No.7 of Scientific Cadre posts on page two of combined transfer order passed by the respondent qua applicant transferring from RM Wng, New Delhi to CSRO, Coimbatore (Annexure A 1).2 O.A. No. 4933/2024
b. Pass appropriate orders and/or directions for quashing/setting aside the subsequent order after rejecting representation of the applicant vide Order dated Order No.I/184490/2024 File No. A.22017/83/2020-ESTT-XI dated 23.09.2024 by placing applicant name on Para 3 at Serial no.2 passed by respondent qua applicant to join applicant to CSRO, Coimbatore (Annexure A2).
c. Such other or further order(s) as may be deemed fit ad appropriate in the facts and circumstances of the present case."
FACTS IN BRIEF
2. Briefly stated facts as adumbrated by the applicant in the OA that applicant joined as Senior Research Assistant on 04.02.2006 in physically handicapped category. The applicant is a case of post- polio residual paralysis of right lower limb, physically handicapped with 62% disability of permanent physical impairment to his right lower limb. The applicant's case is governed by benefits under RPWD Act, 2016 and DoP&T OM dated 31.03.2014. The applicant appointed at Eastern River Division, Central Water Commission, Bhubaneswar, Orissa and in May, 2008 transferred to Upper Yamuna Division, Laboratory, Delhi and served as Assistant Research Officer till promotion on 30.08.2022 and on 01.09.2022 transferred to RDC-Directorate-II, CWC, HQ, New Delhi as A.R.O. and now promoted as R.O. and discharging duties in River Data Compilation Directorate-II, CWC, HQ, New Delhi as R.O. Applicant completed less than three years at RDC, CWC, HQ, New Delhi and not due for transfer.
3. It is also the case of the applicant that respondent no.2 vide impugned transfer order dated 26.07.2024 (Annexure A-1) transferred applicant from RDC-Directorate-II, CWC, HQ, New Delhi to CSRO, Coimbatore on administrative grounds. The representation dated 23.09.2024 has been rejected vide impugned order dated 30.07.2024 ignoring OMs for PWBD in transfer and posting and passed impugned order dated 23.09.2024 (Annexure A-2) w.e.f. 01.04.2025. The impugned transfer Oder is contrary to O.M. dated 31.03.2014 and OM dated 10.05.1990, 13.03.2002, 17.11.201, 05.01.2016, 01.02.2018 and 08.10.2018. The applicant is exempted from rotational transfer and can be allowed to continue in same job, to achieve the desired performance. The mother of the applicant is dependent on him and undergone three major surgeries in New 3 O.A. No. 4933/2024 Delhi and continuous follow up in New Delhi. The son and daughter of the applicant are student of Class IX and XI respectively and will be in Class X and XII, board exam at KV, JNU Caps. The applicant is resident of Alwar, Rajasthan and as per OM dated 13.03.2002 to be posted near native place. The impugned transfer orders (Annexure A-1 & A-2) are in violation of the provisions of Section 20 of RPWD Act, 2016 and contrary to policy framed under Act, 2016.
4. Per contra, respondents have contested the claim of the applicant by filing detailed short reply affidavit, stating that applicant is posted at New Delhi since 24.04.2008 and continuing at New Delhi for a period of 17 years in the same station. Applicant promoted vide Order dated 26.12.2023 to the post of Research Officer and posted at RDC-II, New Delhi till March, 2024 or annual rotational transfer which is earlier and vide Order dated 10.04.2024, posting at RDC-II, New Delhi extended until further orders.
5. Respondents have also averred in the reply that there is administrative exigencies and functional requirement. There are eight sanctioned posts of Research Officer and only six Research Officers posts are filled whereas post of Research Officer at Krishna and Godavari Basin Organization [in short KGBO] Hyderabad and CSRO, Coimbatore are lying vacant being advanced level-III Laboratories and NABL accredited and due to their head-labs existence may have serious repercussions on their accreditation. Applicant is posted in River Data Compilation (RDC)-II, Directorate, CWC, New Delhi and there is no occasion to perform duties of Research Officer.
6. Respondents have also stated in the reply that Order dated 26.07.2024, impugned in the OA, the impugned posting/transfer in annual rotational transfer (2024) issued due to administrative exigencies and functional requirement, transferred to Cauvery and Southern Rivers Organization, Coimbatore, on turn, on the recommendation of "Placement Committee Meeting" held on 25.06.2024 to spearhead the functional requirement of technologically advanced level-III, Laboratory.
4 O.A. No. 4933/20247. Respondents further averred that complaint of applicant was received from court of Chief Commissioner for Persons with Disabilities (Divyangjan), Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment and reply has already been sent. Applicant has been accommodated at New Delhi for a period of 17 years w.e.f. 24.04.2008 and now on promotion to the post of Research Officer, transferred for functional requirement and administrative exigencies in accordance with Section 20 of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 [for brevity Act, 2016]. The respondents are committed to provide him reasonable accommodation, appropriate barrier free environment at CSRO, Coimbatore. The CSRO, Coimbatore is level-III laboratory in ground floor and residential quarters are also available.
8. It is also stated in the counter reply affidavit that applicant resigned from the service on 04.07.2016 and joined in Indian Navy and from 05.07.2016 to 07.10.2016 served Indian Navy. Applicant thereafter joined back and posted on 07.10.2016 at place of his own choice. Applicant is posted in RDC-III, Directorate, CWC, New Delhi and no occasion to perform duties of higher post of Research Officer and on his request on personal grounds accommodated till 31.03.2025 and salary drawn against the post of Research Officer, CSRO, Coimbatore, as a stop-gap arrangement till 31.03.2025. The applicant has been relieved vide Order dated 28.03.2025, so also Committee recommendations no change in earlier order dated 23.09.2024 and representation not accepted.
9. Respondents have placed reliance on catena of judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court relating to scope of judicial review in transfer matters. Shilpi Bose Vs. State of Bihar, S.C. Saxena Vs. Union of India, Union of India Vs. S.L. Abbas, Rajinder Singh vs. State of UP and Gujarat Electricity Board and Anr. (1989) 2 SCC 602, that government servant has no vested right to ask to continue at a place of his choice. The transfer is incident of service and government is the sole authority to take a decision in administrative exigency.
10. Rejoinder has been filed by the applicant stating that impugned order dated 26.07.2024 as well as 23.09.2024 are 5 O.A. No. 4933/2024 contrary to recommendations of Placement Committee meeting held on 25.06.2024, whereby the case of the applicant has been considered and at serial no.9 recommended posting of applicant in YBO, New Delhi, of Scientific Cadre and also a technologically advanced level-III, laboratory called as National River Water Quality [in short NRWQL], New Delhi. The contention of respondents in reply that impugned transfer order dated 26.07.2024 of the applicant is to spread functional requirement of technologically advanced level-III laboratory is totally false and contrary to recommendations of the High Power Placement Committee meeting held on 26.05.2024. Thus, the impugned transfer order is actuated by malafides and false affidavit has been filed which is interference in administration of justice. Respondents have harassed, discriminated the applicant whereas in level-II, small lab at Nagpur and Silchar, two Research Officers posted and no one posted at Hyderabad or Coimbatore. There are total five Level-II laboratories on regional basis and one is at New Delhi. The applicant is working at RDC, Directorate, New Delhi and one sanctioned post of Research Officer is lying vacant and still as per revised sanctioned strength data on 31.01.2025 there are sanctioned strength of RO and post of RO is still vacant at RDC, Directorate, New Delhi, the place of posting of applicant till 31.03.2024.
11. Applicant has also made averments in the rejoinder that son of applicant is reaching in Class X and daughter in Class XII in April, 2025 and arbitrary transfer order of applicant, suffering with 62% locomotor disability of post polio residual paralysis of right lower limb, and impugned transfer is discriminatory in nature. Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in Ircon International Ltd. Bhavneet Singh 2024 SCC Online Del 4952 has laid down five guiding principles to take care while transferring a differently abled- person. Respondents have not followed policies for transfer to differently abled-persons and the judgments cited by the respondents are not applicable in this case as the same have not been passed based on provision of Act, 2016, rules and OM issued pursuant to Section 20 of Act, 2016. Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Net Ram Yadav Vs. State of Rajasthan (2022) 15 SCC 81, recognized that differently abled-persons cannot be treated on the 6 O.A. No. 4933/2024 same footing as non-disabled persons regarding maters of transfer. The transfer of applicant 2700 km away from present place of posting and non-disabled RO transferred from Guwahati to Silcher in Level-II small lab about 100 km to accommodate them and impugned order is not in public interest but arbitrary, vitiated exercise of power, malafides and in violation of guidelines for transfer under Section 20 of Act, 2016. Hence, the impugned transfer Order so far related to the applicant deserves to be quashed.
DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS
12. The issue arises for consideration is "whether respondents while passing the transfer order dated 26.07.2024, so far relates to the applicant-differently-abled person with bench mark disability of 62% have complied with provisions of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016, the rules framed, circulars/Office Memorandum, issued by Government of India?"
RULE OF LAW
13. The relevant provision to appreciate the controversy i.e. the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016, an Act enacted to implement the United Nations Convention, relevant provisions whereof are extracted hereunder:-
A. Section 3 "3. Equality and non-discrimination.--
(1) The appropriate Government shall ensure that the persons with disabilities enjoy the right to equality, life with dignity and respect for his or her integrity equally with others.
(2) The appropriate Government shall take steps to utilize the capacity of persons with disabilities by providing appropriate environment.
(3) No person with disability shall be discriminated on the ground of disability, unless it is shown that the impugned act or omission is a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim.
(4) No person shall be deprived of his or her personal liberty only on the ground of disability.
(5) The appropriate Government shall take necessary steps to ensure reasonable accommodation for persons with disabilities."
7 O.A. No. 4933/202420. Non-discrimination in employment.--
(1) No Government establishment shall discriminate against any person with disability in any matter relating to employment:
Provided that the appropriate Government may, having regard to the type of work carried on in any establishment, by notification and subject to such conditions, if any, exempt any establishment from the provisions of this section.
(2) Every Government establishment shall provide reasonable accommodation and appropriate barrier free and conducive environment to employees with disability.
(3) No promotion shall be denied to a person merely on the ground of disability.
(4) No Government establishment shall dispense with or reduce in rank, an employee who acquires a disability during his or her service: Provided that, if an employee after acquiring disability is not suitable for the post he was holding, shall be shifted to some other post with the same pay scale and service benefits: Provided further that if it is not possible to adjust the employee against any post, he may be kept on a supernumerary post until a suitable post is available or he attains the age of superannuation, whichever is earlier.
(5) The appropriate Government may frame policies for posting and transfer of employees with disabilities."
B. The Rights of Persons with Disabilities Rules, 2017 have been published to carry out the provisions of Act, 2016. Relevant Chapter-IV-Employment, Rule 8 of Rules, 2017 reads as -
"Rule 8
8. Manner of publication of equal opportunity policy -
(1) Every establishment shall publish equal opportunity policy for persons with disability.
(2) The establishment shall display the equal opportunity policy preferably on their website, failing which, at conspicuous places in their premises.
(3) The equal opportunity policy of a private establishment having twenty or more employees and the Government establishments shall inter alia, contain the following, namely -
(a) facility and amenity to be provided to the persons with disabilities to enable them to effectively discharge their duties in the establishments;
(b) list of posts identified suitable for persons with disabilities in the establishments;
(c) the manner of selection of persons with disabilities for various posts, post-recruitment and pre-promotion training, preference in transfer and posting, special leave, preference in allotment of residential accommodation, if any, and other facilities.8 O.A. No. 4933/2024
(d) provisions for assistive devices, barrier free accessibility, and other provision for persons with disabilities.
(e) appointment of liaison officer by the establishment to look after the recruitment of persons with disabilities and provisions of facilities and amenities for such employees."
C. Government of India, Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances & Pensions, Department of Personnel and Training has issued guidelines for providing certain facilities in respect of persons with disabilities who are already employed in government for efficient performance of their duties vide OM dated 02.02.2024. The relevant paragraph 1 & 2 (H) & 3 read as under:-
"The undersigned is directed to say that DoPT, vide OM No.36035/3/2013-Estt(Res), dated 31.3.2014, has issued detailed guidelines conveying the additional facilities/amenities which are required to be provided to the Persons with Disabilities (PwDs) to enable them to effectively discharge their duties. Vide this OM, facilities such as identification of jobs, post recruitment and pre- promotion training, assistive devices, free accessibility preference in transfer/posting, special casual leave, etc. have been identified as areas which require special attention. The facilities indicated in the guidelines are applicable in respect of such employees working in the Ministries/Departments of the Government of India, their attached and subordinate offices, Central Public Sector Enterprises, Cantonment Boards etc. Further, vide OM No. 42011/3/2014- Estt(Res), dated 8.10.2018, exemption from the routine exercise of transfer/rotational transfer has also been extended to the employees, who are caregiver of Persons with Disability dependents. However, in the 18th National Review Meeting of the State/UT Commissioners for Persons with Disabilities, held on 29th and 30th November, 2023 at New Delhi, it has, inter-alia, been recommended that the Central Government may issue consolidated instructions regarding posting and transfer of employees with disabilities, covering the parents who have children with disabilities and an employee having parents with disabilities.
2. In view of the above, it has been decided to reiterate the guidelines as conveyed vide the aforesaid OM dated 31.3.2014 and 8.10.2018 as under:
H. Preference in transfer/posting As far as possible, the persons with disabilities may be exempted from the rotational transfer policy/transfer and be allowed to continue in the same job, where they would have achieved the desired performance. Further, preference in place of posting at the time of transfer/promotion may be given to the persons with disability subject to the administrative constraints.
The practice of considering choice of place of posting in case of persons with disabilities may be continued. To the extent feasible, they may be retained in the same job, where their services could be optimally utilized."9 O.A. No. 4933/2024
3. All the Ministries/Departments are requested to bring the above instructions to the notice of all appointing authorities under their control, for information and compliance. The Department of Public Enterprises may ensure to give effect the above guidelines in all the Central Public Sector Enterprises.
[Emphasis supplied] CASE LAW
14. Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Net Ram Yadav Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors, reported in (2022) 15 SCC 81, Their Lordships - interpreted the government orders and circulars for employees appointed in the category of handicapped candidates posted about 550 km away from place of residence. The relevant paragraphs no.22, 23, 24, 25,26, 27, 28, 29 and 30 for ready reference read as -
"22. It is true that the Appellant was appointed in 1993, long before the Circular dated 20th July 2000 for appointment/posting of persons with disability at or near the place of their choice was issued. However, having regard to the object of issuance of the Circular, which is to enable handicapped employees to opt for posting at a convenient place, may be near the place where the employee ordinarily resides with the members of his family, or at or near a place where the handicapped employee may get assistance, inter alia, of family members, relatives, friends, or may be institutional support, the benefit of the circular has to be extended even to those candidates appointed before issuance of the Circular, subject of course to availability of posts and other relevant factors. Exclusion of the benefit of the Circular to handicapped employees already in employment at the time of its issuance, would violate the fundamental right of those employees to equality under Articles 14/16 of the Constitution of India.
23. The said Circular has been applied to teachers in service in government institutions at the time of issuance of the Circular, as will appear from the aforesaid communication being Sl. No. F. 16(1)() Aamij/01/6705 Jaipur dated 21st September 2001 issued by the Additional Commissioner, Disabled Persons, to the Director, Secondary Education, Bikaner requesting him to get the Appellant transferred to a Government Secondary School in Giglana (Alwar), drawing his attention to the said Circular dated 20th July 2000.
24. The marginalization of the disabled/handicapped is a human rights issue, which has been the subject matter of deliberations and discussion all over the world. There is increasing global concern to ensure that the disabled are not sidelined on account of their disability.
25. A series of meetings, discussions and deliberations on the issue of human rights of persons with disabilities, led to adoption by the General Assembly of the United Nations, of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disability (UNCRPD), aimed at protecting the human rights and dignity of persons with disability. Adopted in 2006, the 10 O.A. No. 4933/2024 UNCRPD came into force in May 2008. About 177 countries including India have ratified the UNCRPD.
26. The UNCRPD consists of 50 Articles, which outline the inherent rights and liberties of persons with disabilities. The Articles of the UNCRPD are based on certain general principles, the most important of which is respect for inherent dignity and individual autonomy of persons with disability. Equally important is the right of non- discrimination, which would include reasonable accommodation and/or concessions for full and effective participation and inclusion in society. Respect for difference and acceptance of persons with disabilities as part of human diversity and humanity lies at the core of the dignity of persons with disability.
27. UNCRPD has been ratified by India. The State is obliged to give effect to the UNCRPD. All Statutes, Rules, Regulations, Bye-laws, Orders and Circulars for the benefit of the Physically Disabled necessarily have to be given a purposive interpretation in harmony with the principles of UNCRPD.
28. Even otherwise, human rights are rights inherent in civilized society, from the very inception of civilization, even though such rights may have been identified and enumerated in international instruments such as the Universal Declaration of Human Rights adopted by the General Assembly of the United Nations on 10th December 1948, or other international conventions and instruments including UNCRPD. Furthermore, the disabled are entitled to the fundamental right of equality enshrined in Articles 14 to 16 of the Constitution of India, the fundamental freedoms guaranteed under Article 19 including the right to carry out any occupation, profession, the right to life under Article 21, which has now been interpreted to mean the right to live with dignity, which has to be interpreted liberally in relation to the disabled.
29. One of the hindrances/disadvantages faced by the physically disabled persons is the inability to move freely and easily. In consideration of the 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, 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 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.
30. 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."
[Emphasis supplied] 11 O.A. No. 4933/2024
15. In case of Anju Mehra Vs. Canara Bank and Ors. reported in 274 (2020) Delhi Law Times, 359, Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the transfer matter of persons with disability category in light of beneficial DoP&T OM dated 31.03.2014, clearly exempt persons with disability from rotational transfers. Relevant paragraphs 6, 10, 15, 17, 18, 20 and 21 read as under:-
"6. The Transfer Order is assailed by the Petitioner on several grounds. It is first contended by Mr. Bansal learned counsel for the Petitioner that the Respondents have overlooked the directions given by the Office of Respondent No.2/DoPT vide Memorandum dated 31.03.2014. The provisions of the said OM clearly exempt persons with disability from rotational transfers. Petitioner herein is a person with 90% locomotor disability and is entitled to exemption from routine or regular transfers by virtue of the said OM. Relevant extract relied upon by the learned counsel for the Petitioner is as under :-
"H. Preference in training / Posting As far as possible, the persons with disabilities may be exempted from the rotational transfer policy / transfer and be allowed to continue in the same job, where they would have achieved the desired performance. Further, preference in place of posting at the time of transfer / promotion may be given to the persons with disability subject to the administrative constraints. The practice of considering choice of place of posting in case of persons with disabilities may be continued. To the extent feasible, they may be retained in the same job, where their services could be optimally utilized."
xxx xxx xxx
10. Reliance is placed on the judgment of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh in W.P.(C) 148/2017, titled Sudhanshu Tripathi vs. Bank of India and Ors. to argue that while transfer is an incidence of service, but the same has to be done keeping in mind the policies issued by the Government from time to time. Relevant part of the judgment relied upon reads as under:
"..No employee can dispute the aforesaid established fact that transfer is an incident of service, but 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 authorities."
xxx xxx xxx
15. With regard to the argument of the Respondent that the posting has been done keeping in mind the Promotion Policy so that the Petitioner has the requisite experience in the rural/semi-urban areas, it is argued that under the Memorandum dated 13.12.2018 there is a clear exemption granted to persons suffering from disability over 65%.
xxx xxx xxx 12 O.A. No. 4933/2024
17. I find force in the contention of the Petitioner that in terms of the O.M. dated 31.03.2014, there is a clear directive that employees with disabilities must be exempted from routine/rotational transfers. Relevant part of the O.M. has been extracted in the earlier part of the judgment. A Division Bench of this Court in V.K. Bhasin vs. State Bank of Patiala & Ors., LPA No.74/2005 while dealing with a transfer order of the Petitioner therein who had 40% disability observed that persons with disabilities face discrimination and various barriers. To set right this position, the Economic & Social Commission for Asian & Pacific Region in its meeting in December, 1992 launched the Asian & Pacific Decade of Disabled Persons and a Proclamation on the Full Participation and Equality of People with Disabilities was adopted. India was signatory to the Proclamation and this gave birth to the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995 Disabilities Act, 1995. The Court while culling out the Statement of Objects and Reasons of the enactment, observed that despite the legislation endeavors have been made by department to frustrate the provisions. The Court placed reliance on the Circular of the Bank therein, particularly a Circular dated 15.02.1988 and observed as follows :-
"17. A reading of the aforesaid circular dated 15.02.1988 would show that even prior to the said Act coming into force, the issue of posting / transfer of physically challenged employees in public sector banks / financial institutions (the respondent Bank being one such) was dealt with by the Ministry of Finance. In terms of the circular, every endeavour has to be made so far as possible to allot persons with disability to branches located in or near their home town or village. Not only this, such persons are exempted from routine periodic transfers except on account of administrative exigencies. The circular further goes on to record that such person should not normally be transferred even on promotion, if a vacancy exists in the same branch office and town / city, but in case of such promotion, if the transfer is inevitable, the person is to be kept nearest to his / her original place of posting. Of course, in case of disciplinary action, the position would be different. Such a circular itself would take care of persons with disability. This circular has never been superseded.
xxxxx xxxxxx xxxxxx
24. The written synopsis also goes on to raise the issue of scope of judicial review. In matters of transfer, this Court does not sit as a court of appeal. However, where the very basis is erroneous, this Court is entitled to intervene. Totally irrelevant factors have been taken into account as stated above and the provisions of statutory enactment like the said Act, the said Rules and the Office Memorandum issued in furtherance thereof are sought to be defeated. One cannot lose sight of the fact that the legislation is in furtherance of international commitments and to give an equal treatment to persons with disability. All this has been given a go-bye while rejecting the request of the appellant and the Bank insists on implementing the erroneous decision. In such a case, this Court cannot be powerless to remedy the situation."13 O.A. No. 4933/2024
18. In view of the mandate of the Right of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 as well as the O.M. Dated 31.03.2014, this Court cannot accept the contention of the Respondent that the Petitioner has to be subjected to routine / rotational transfer.
xxx xxx xxx
20. In so far as the contention of the Bank that the Petitioner is being posted to enable her to gain the mandatory experience of working in rural/semi urban areas, is concerned, suffice would it be to take note of the provisions of the O.M. dated 31.12.2018, wherein it is clearly stipulated that with respect to persons with over 65% disability, there shall be an exemption from the transfer. Relevant para has been extracted above. While it is true that transfer is an incidence of service and the right of an employee to resist transfer is subservient to administrative exigencies but in my view this principle would not apply in the present case. The Petitioner is agitating her rights under a Legislation i.e. the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995 which has been enacted in furtherance of international commitments and to ensure equal treatment to persons with disabilities, as observed by the Division Bench in V.K.Bhasin's case (supra).
21. For all the aforesaid reasons, I am of the view that there is merit in the present petition and the same deserves to be allowed. The writ petition is accordingly allowed. Transfer Order communicated to the Petitioner vide email dated 21.09.2020 is hereby quashed and set aside. Pending application stands disposed of."
[Emphasis supplied]
16. In case of Ircon International Ltd. Vs. Bhavneet Singh, reported in 2024 SCC Online Del 4952. The Division Bench of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi, Their Lordships was seisin with the moot-question, whether an employer, while passing transfer and posting orders concerning a differently-abled person, is required to keep in mind the provisions of "The Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016", the rules framed thereunder, and Circular/Office Memorandums (OMs) issued from time to time by GOI and the departments and Ministries working under it?" The relevant paragraphs 2, 3, 20, 26, 26.2, 26.3, 26.5, 26.6, 26.7, 31.1, 31.2, 31.3, 31.4, 31.5, 32, 32.1, 32.2, 32.3, 32.4, 32.5, 32.6, 36, 39.1, 39.2, 43.2, 43.3 and 43.4, read as under:-
"2. The moot question which arises for consideration is whether an employer, while passing transfer and posting orders concerning a differently-abled person, is required to keep in mind the provisions of „The Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016‟ [hereafter referred to as the "2016 Act"], the rules framed thereunder, and Circulars/Office Memorandums [OM] issued from time to time 14 O.A. No. 4933/2024 by Government of India [GOI] and the Departments and Ministries working under it.
3. There is no gainsaying that the transfer of employees, being an administrative decision, falls within the exclusive domain of the employer since the employer knows best how to use its human resources. The scope for interference by Courts with transfer orders is narrow. Courts interfere with transfer orders if they are tainted by malafide intent and/or are contrary to the provisions of a statute or administrative order having a statutory flavour.
3.1 The broad principles captured above apply squarely to non-disabled persons and, to an extent, to a differently-abled person, albeit with certain caveats.
3.2 The caveats concerning differently-abled persons are contained in the 2016 Act, the rules framed thereunder, and the Circulars/OMs issued by GOI/Department of Personnel and Training [DoPT] and various Ministries.
20. The sum and substance of the Circulars referred to hereinabove is that differently-abled persons should not be subjected to rotational transfer. If a differently-abled person is required to be transferred, whether on promotion or otherwise, their choice concerning the place of posting should be ascertained by the employer.
26. Ms Padma Priya, on the other hand, has relied mainly upon the impugned judgment in support of the respondent‟s stand. It was contended that the learned Single Judge had rightly relied upon the provisions of the erstwhile statute concerning differently-abled persons, i.e., „The Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act 1995‟ [hereafter referred to as the "1995 Act"], The Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities [hereafter referred to as "CRPD"] and the Circulars/OMs issued by DoPT, to form a view that a different approach even in transfer matters had to be employed when it concerned differently-abled persons.
26.1 The learned Single Judge‟s conclusion that the Circulars/OMs exempted persons who are differently-abled from rotational transfer and should be allowed to continue in the same job where they would achieve the desired performance level was also correct. Furthermore, as rightly concluded, the Circulars/OMs did advise that at the time of transfer or promotion, a differently-abled person‟s preference concerning the place of posting should be sought, subject to administrative constraints. [See Net Ram vs State of Rajasthan, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1022].
26.2 In matters involving differently-abled persons, rights conferred upon them under Articles 14,15,16 and 21 of the Constitution of India should be preserved and protected. [See Justice Sunanda Bhandare Foundation vs Union of India, 2014 14 SCC 383].
26.3 The material on record would show that the respondent requires specialized medical attention, particularly the services of a qualified paramedic.
26.4 The fact that the respondent did not approach the Chief Commissioner in this matter cannot render the writ action untenable in law. The powers of the Chief Commissioner are narrower and limited in scope and content. The Chief Commissioner can make only recommendations that may or may not be accepted.15 O.A. No. 4933/2024
26.5 The Circulars/OMs relied upon apply to CPSEs. The copies of the Circulars and OMs have been marked to the Department of Public Enterprises [DPE] for issuance of necessary instructions so that all CPSEs follow the guidelines. These guidelines are in the nature of executive instructions, which confer special privileges to a particular class of persons; hence, they would have to be followed by government establishments/CPSEs, being model employers. [See Swaran Singh Chand v Punjab State Electricity Board, (2009) 13 SCC 758]. 26.6 This Court, in the matter of VK Basin v. State Bank of Patiala and Ors., 2005:DHC:19141-DB, has relied upon OM dated 06.06.2014, which concerned the transfer of disabled persons.
26.7 The statement of objects and reasons contained in „The Rights of Persons with Disabilities Amendment Bill, 2023‟ states in no uncertain terms that the principal act, i.e., the 2016 Act, places the responsibility for implementation of rules concerning health, education, and employment of differently-abled persons on the appropriate government and local authority. 26.8 The abrupt and arbitrary action to transfer the respondent in August 2022 to Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh, was preceded by the respondent‟s transfer on two earlier occasions, i.e., in 2020 and 2022.
31. Mr Bajaj, learned Amicus curiae, apart from supporting the view taken by the learned Single Judge, and emphasizing the observations made therein, made the following broad submissions.
31.1 The 1995 Act required the State to fulfil the following key objectives so that the rights of differently-abled persons are safeguarded:
i) Extension of essential medical care
ii) Providing employment opportunities.
iii) Cultivate an environment conducive to their
development while eradicating discriminatory
practices.
31.2 The 2016 Act stresses non-discrimination, respect for diversity, and acceptance of persons with disabilities; all integral to human diversity and equality of opportunity. [See Preamble to the 2016 Act.] 31.3 Section 20 of the 2016 Act obliges government establishments to provide reasonable accommodations, barrier-free environments, and settings conducive to differently-abled persons. Section 20(5) of the 2016 Act, in particular, requires the formulation of policies for posting and transferring differently-abled persons.
31.4 DoPT‟s OMs/Circulars dated 10.05.1990, 13.03.2002, and 31.03.2014 provide that persons belonging to Groups A, B, C, and D of government service should be posted near their native place. These OMs also lay down guidelines for providing facilities to differently-abled employees, in particular, exempting them from rotational transfers and exhorting employers to place such persons, at the time of transfer or promotion, at locations of their choice.
31.5 The reason differently-abled persons are exempted from rotational transfers is to prevent unnecessary harassment and to ensure that they work in an environment conducive to their well-being. Besides these reasons, easy accessibility to requisite medical assistance is a primary consideration. 31.6 The submission advanced on behalf of IRCON IL, that the respondent had misbehaved on multiple occasions and that his performance was not up to the mark would have to be dealt with as per procedure established by the law. The 16 O.A. No. 4933/2024 allegation levelled against the respondent concerning his misbehaviour/misconduct could not be factored in by IRCON IL while taking a decision on the respondent‟s transfer as the robustness of these allegations would have to be tested in a properly instituted disciplinary proceeding.
31.7 Insofar as the work performance of the respondent is concerned, IRCON IL must evaluate whether reasonable accommodation was provided to him and whether the gap, if any, in that behalf, impacted the respondent's performance.
31.8 In sum, the insinuation made on behalf of IRCON IL concerning the respondent's misconduct/misbehaviour ought not to be taken into account by the Court as clearly, no formal inquiry has been launched against the respondent, which, if instituted, would have allowed the respondent to defend himself.
31.9 IRCON IL‟s argument that because it operates in a competitive environment, it cannot exempt the respondent from routine transfer, as it would impact its efficiency, is misconceived. The provisions of the 2016 Act apply to every establishment, including a private establishment. [See 2(i) of the 2016 Act].
32. Section 21 of the 2016 Act requires every establishment to frame an "Equal Opportunity Policy‟. Rule 8 of "The Rights of Persons with Disabilities Rules, 2017 [hereafter referred to as the "2017 Rules"] captures the ingredients of such policy. In particular, Rule 8(3)(c), among other things, states that such policy must give preference in transfer and posting to differently-abled persons. If such obligation is cast on a private establishment, other establishments would also have to do their bit in that behalf.
32.1 Therefore, a public sector undertaking cannot escape from such obligation. An establishment cannot sidestep legal obligations cast upon it under the 2016 Act on the ground that it would be counter-productive if it were to comply with it. The DoPT OM dated 02.02.2024 exempts persons with disabilities from rotational transfer, wherever possible, thus, allowing them to operate in their current roles if they have discharged their duties satisfactorily.
32.2 Additionally, the aforementioned OM recommends that preference qua place of posting should be given during transfers and promotions to persons with disabilities, provided it is administratively feasible. Significantly, via the said OM, DPE has been requested to ensure that it is made applicable to CPSEs.
32.3 The DPE‟s OM dated 05.04.2023 requires CPSEs to strictly comply with the guidelines issued by the Chief Commissioner via order dated 07.02.2023. The order of the Chief Commissioner highlights non-adherence to guidelines relating to the transfer of differently-abled employees. 32.4 The Supreme Court‟s decision in Net Ram Yadav's case recognises that differently-abled persons cannot be treated on the same footing as non-disabled persons regarding matters concerning transfer. The judgement holds that a contrary approach would result in treating unequals equally and thus, render such action violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. 32.5 The decision of a division bench of this Court in Anju Mehra v. Canara Bank, 2020:DHC:3183, rules that the general law on transfer has been overtaken by the provisions of the 2016 Act, which concerns persons with disabilities. Both the 2016 and the 1995 Acts are enacted to align with commitments made by the country at international Forums and to ensure that equal treatment 17 O.A. No. 4933/2024 is accorded to persons with disabilities. 32.6 The submission advanced on behalf of IRCON IL that the provision in the respondent's employment contract had put him to notice that his job was transferable, and therefore, he could not assail the transfer/relieving orders is untenable in law. It is well-established that statutory provisions and government guidelines having statutory flavour supersede such contractual arrangements. [Sudhanshu Tripathi v. Bank of India, MANU/MP/0932/2018; VK Basin v. State Bank of Patiala and Ors, Pradeep Kumar Shrivastav v. CBI, OA No 2233/2017; Order dated 08.02.2018].
36. In addition, the Circulars/OMs referred to in paragraph nineteen (19) above clearly state that differently-abled persons should be exempted from rotational transfers save and except when there are administrative constraints. The Circulars/OMs also state that when differently-abled persons are transferred or promoted, it should preferably be to a location of their choice.
39. As mentioned above, the respondent wears a knee-length prosthetic, which requires regular maintenance. The respondent is afflicted with other medical issues, including a degenerative spine. Therefore, for IRCON IL to relocate the respondent from Delhi to Bilaspur falls foul of the Circulars and OMs referred to hereinabove, in particular, OMs dated 31.03.2014 and 02.02.2024. For convenience, the relevant parts of the OMs are extracted hereafter.
39.1 The OM dated 31.03.2014:
"H. Preference in transfer/posting _ As far as possible, the persons with disabilities may be exempted from the rotational transfer policy/transfer and be allowed to continue in the same job, where they would have achieved the desired performance. Further, preference in place of posting at the time of transfer/promotion may be given to the persons with disability subject to the administrative constraints. The practice of considering choice of place of posting in case of persons with disabilities may be continued. To the extent feasible, they may be retained in the same job, where their services could be optimally utilised."
39.2 The OM dated 02.02.2024:
"H. Preference in transfer/posting As far as possible, the persons with disabilities may be exempted from the rotational transfer policy/transfer and be allowed to continue in the same job, where they would have achieved the desired performance. Further, preference in place of posting at the time of transfer/promotion may be given to the persons with disability subject to the administrative constraints. The practice of considering choice of place of posting in case of persons with disabilities may be continued. To the extent feasible, they may be retained in the same job, where their services could be optimally utilised."
[Emphasis is ours] 43.1 A contractual arrangement between parties, including an employment contract, is always subordinate to the legislative framework governing the field occupied by the subject contract. Therefore, very often, protection is granted to one or the other party, which is inconsistent with the arrangement arrived at between 18 O.A. No. 4933/2024 contracting parties of their own volition. 43.2 There are several examples of such intercession via statutes, such as landlord-tenant agreements and even employment contracts, such as the one obtaining between an employer and an employee who is a differently-abled person. If the terms and conditions of the employment contract executed between an employer and a differently-abled person are found to be inconsistent with the provisions of the 2016 Act, the latter would prevail. 43.3 In this context, noting the provisions of Section 20(5) and Section 21 of the 2016 Act may be helpful. Section 20(5) permits the appropriate government to frame policies for posting and transferring employees with disabilities.
43.4 Section 21 mandates an „establishment‟ to notify its „Equal Opportunity Policy‟, which would detail the measures it proposes to take under the provisions of Chapter IV of the 2016 Act, which contains provisions for skill development and employment.
[Emphasis supplied]
17. Article 41 of the Constitution of India stipulates that the State shall make effective provisions for securing the right to work, education and public assistance in cases of unemployment, old-age, sickness and disablement. The statutory provisions in sub-section 2 of Section 20 of RPWD Act, 2016 provides that government establishments shall provide reasonable accommodation, appropriate barrier free and conducive environment to divyang employees. Section 20 (5) of RPWD Act, 2016 provides that appropriate government may frame policies for posting and transfer of employees with disability. Section 21 of the RPWD Act, 2016 stipulates for equal opportunity policy to take measures to provide equal opportunities by formulating the equal opportunity policy. Rule 8 of the RPWD Rules, 2017 prescribes the manner of preparing and notifying the equal opportunity under Section 21 of RPWD Act, 2016. The DoP&T has issued instructions to the cadre Controlling Authorities. O.M. dated 31.03.2014 lays down certain guidelines for providing facilities to divyang employees of government employees under heading "H" of the O.M. two guidelines with respect to the transfer and posting of divyang employees are laid down. Firstly, it is laid down that divyang employees may be exempted from rotational transfer and allowed to continue in the same job where they would have achieved the desired performance. Secondly, the O.M. provides that at the time of transfer/promotion, preference in place of posting may be given to persons with disabilities subject to administrative 19 O.A. No. 4933/2024 constrains. In year 2002, this exemption was extended to Group 'A' Group 'B' Divyang employees.
18. The intention of legislature reflected in RPWD Act, 2016 to provide a supporting environment in terms of health, education, social and psychological support and OMs provides for exemption from rotational transfer to achieve intentions and objectives of RPWED Act, 2016 and these OMs/guidelines are binding in spite of basic principle that transfer is an incident of service. Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in judgment dated 18.07.2024 in LPA No.133/2024, in case of IRCON International Ltd. vs. Bhavneet Singh, Their Lordships acknowledged that there is no inherent right of any employee to be posted to a place of his choice, held that persons with disabilities should be exempted from routine transfers and be posted near their native place or place of their choice, subject to the exigencies of service.
19. Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Anju Mehra vs. Canara Bank (supra), Their Lordships held that divyang employees must be exempted from routine transfer and posting at rural locations and relied on OM dated 31.03.2014 that Divyang employees must be exempted from the routine transfer. So also observed that - principle of transfer is incident of service and the basic principle is not applicable in cases pertaining to the transfer of divyang employees. Their Lordships held that when an employee is agitating his rights under RPWD Act, 2016 or PWD Act, 1995, principles of general nature are not applicable in such cases because both Acts are enacted in furtherance of international commitments and to ensure equal treatment to persons with disabilities.
20. Hon'ble High Court of M.P. in Sudhanshu Tripathi Vs. Bank of India, W.P. No.148/2017 decided on 27.04.2018, Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in V.K. Bhasin Vs. State Bank of Patiala in LPA No.74/2005, judgment dated 03.08.2005 and Coordinate Bench of this Tribunal in case of Pradeep Kumar Srivastava Vs. CBI [OA No.2233/2017 decided on 08.02.2018] held that "law laid down in S.L. Abbas and B. Vardha Rao is not applicable in cases related to transfer of divyang employees."
20 O.A. No. 4933/2024Hon'ble Courts held that transfer policies framed by various government establishments are framed to cover normal circumstances when a divyang employee challenges his transfer under the RPWD Act, 2016 or the PWD Act, 1995 or various guidelines are passed from time to time, such challenge is under special statutes that are enacted in furtherance of international commitments.
21. Now coming on the facts of present case and keeping the aforesaid broad parameters in sight. Applicant was appointed in the category of physically handicapped and has 62% post polio residual paralysis of right limb. Applicant was promoted to the post of Assistant Research Officer vide order dated 31.03.2021 and posted at R.M. Wing (HQ), New Delhi in public interest and on placement Committee recommendations posted in New Delhi. The applicant was promoted from the post of ARO to Research Officer (in short RO) vide Order dated 26.12.2023 in Scientific cadre Group 'A', Level-10 of the pay matrix and posted on promotion in RDC-II, Directorate, Delhi. Respondents have extended the posting at RDC- II, Directorate, New Delhi vide order dated 10.04.2024. The Placement Committee for rotational transfer held on 25.06.2024 and minutes of the meeting placed on record as Annexure A-1, with rejoinder and not disputed by the parties. The six-members high Powered Placement Committee has also considered the case of applicant that he has been given promotion and posted to the grade of R.O. at RDC-II, HQ, New Delhi till 31.03.2024 or rotational transfer whichever is earlier. The placement Committee went through documents, longest stayee list, vacancies, administrative exigencies and recommended the name of the applicant at serial no.9 for posting from RM Wing, New Delhi to YBO, New Delhi on his turn. The relevant extract of minutes of Placement Committee dated 25.06.2024 for ready reference reads as under -
ANNEXURE A-1 "MINUTES OF THE PLACEMENT COMMITTEE MEETING FOR ROTATIONAL TRANSFER HELD ON 25TH JUNE, 2024 AT 11:30 A.M. IN THE CHAMBER OF CHIEF ENGINEER (HRM), CWC TO SUGGEST ANNUAL ROTATIONAL TRANSFER/POSTING OF OFFICERS/OFFICIALS OF HYDROMET AND SCIENTIFIC CADRE OF CWC FOR THE YEAR 2024.
21 O.A. No. 4933/2024Present:
1. Shri Padma Dorje, Chief Engineer (HRM), CWC -Chairman
2. Shri Praveen Kumar, Secretary, CWC -Member
3. Shri Rakesh Toteja, Director (RMCD), CWC -Member
4. Shri Pankaj Kumar Sharma, Director (RDC-II),CWC-Member
5. Shri Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, Director(E-II),CWC-Member
6. Smt. Gomathy Jayaraman, Under Secretary, -Member Secretary Estt.XI, CWC
2. The Placement Committee was informed that the requests for Rotational Transfer of Six (06) officials of Hydromet Cadre & Five (05) officials of Scientific Cadre have been received through proper channel and one application of Smt. Sikha Mondal, ARO has not been received through proper channel as per Annexure-1.
3. The Committee was further informed that Two (02) officers of scientific cadre namely Smt. Synjukta Lyndem and Shri Rajesh Kumar have given posting on promotion to the grade of Research Officer at BBO, Guwahati and RDC-II respectively till 31st March 2024 or Rotational Transfer whichever is earlier vide order no.A-32014/1/2020-ESTT-XI dated
26.12.2023. Further, in view of model code of conduct General Elections 2024, their current place of posting/division have been extended until further orders vide order no.A-32014/1/2020-ESTT.XI dated 10.04.2024 as per Annexure-II.
9. The Placement Committee went through the documents as was made available to it and based on the requests received from the offices/officials of Hydromet & Scientific cadre, incumbency position of both the cadres, longest stayee list, vacancies, administrative exigencies and constraints, the Committee recommended the transfer/posting of the following officers/officials of Hydromet & Scientific cadre as detailed below:-
Scientific Cadre:
S. Name Designation Present Recommended Remarks No. Sh./Smt./Ms. place of place of posting posting X Xxx Xxx Xxx Xxx Xxx
9. Rajesh Research RM YBO, New On Turn Kumar Officer Wing, Delhi New Delhi [Emphasis supplied]"
22. What emerges out loud and clear from the minutes of Placement Committee meeting held on 25.06.2024 to suggest annual rotational transfer and posting, the case of applicant was considered based on incumbency position of scientific cadre of applicant, longest stayee list, vacancies, administrative exigencies and constraints. The High Powered Committee on 25.06.2024 categorically recommended for posting of applicant from RM Wing, New Delhi to YBO, New Delhi on its turn. It is also not disputed that as per Office Order dated 31.01.2025 sanctioned strength for post of RO in scientific cadre of CWC (HQ) and field offices of CWC, in office 22 O.A. No. 4933/2024 of YBO - Delhi, there is one sanctioned and revised post of RO and so also at RM Wing, Delhi, there is one sanctioned post of RO and revised one post. It is clear as noon day that High Power Committee for rotational transfer on 25.06.2024, considered policies, longest stayee list, vacancies, administrative exigencies and constraints and recommended the case of applicant for posting in YBO, New Delhi on own turn.
23. The Placement Committee consisting of six high ranking officers to ensure transparency for improving administration and protecting employees against wrongful, arbitrary and illegal transfers and fix the responsibility.
24. Applicant is case of 62% disability and Placement Committee recommended for posting at YBO, New Delhi on 25.06.2024 and no one was recommended for posting at CSRO, Coimbatore. Applicant has stated that respondents in arbitrary manner, actuated by malafides, contrary to high power placement committee recommendation, applicant posted. Respondent no.2 issued arbitrary and illegal transfer order dated 26.07.2024 (Annexure A-1) stating incorrectly that placement committee for rotational transfer-
2024 posted applicant from RM Wing, New Delhi to CSRO, Coimbatore on turn and continued till 31.03.2025. So also vide office Order dated 28.03.2025 reported no change in earlier impugned transfer order dated 23.09.2024.
25. Applicant is native of Alwar, Rajasthan transferred to 2700 km away on consideration of medical disability, administrative constraints, longest stayee list, the placement committee recommended for posting in office of YBO, New Delhi on vacant sanctioned post of R.O. The impugned Order dated 26.07.2024 (Annexure A-1), Order dated 23.09.2024 (Annexure A-2) and relieving Order dated 28.03.2025 transferring applicant to 2700 km away from native place, deserve to be set aside and quashed, being not bonafide exercise of power, actuated by malafides and contrary to statutory provisions and OMs framed under RPWD Act, 2016 and law laid down by Hon'ble Courts.
23 O.A. No. 4933/202426. The sum and substance of the statutory provisions under RPWD Act, 2016 and OMs issued pursuant to statutory provisions that differently-abled persons should not be subjected to rotational transfer and be posted to their choice concerning the place of posting as ascertained by the employer. What emerges that applicant is a person with benchmark disability with 62% permanent disability to post polio residual paralysis of right lower limbs holding grade of RO, a Group 'A' post. The Placement Committee recommended for posting at New Delhi. The son and daughter of the applicant reached to Class-X and Clas-XII board exams respectively.
27. Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Director of School Education Vs. O. Karuppa Thevan, reported in (1994) Supp.2 SCC 666, Their Lordships held that "in effecting transfer the fact that the children of an employee are studying they should not be disturbed in the middle of the academic term and should be given due weightage if the exigencies of service were not urgent. Transfer of an employee during the mid-academic term in the absence of urgency is not proper and such transfer was restrained from being effected till end of that academic year".
28. The respondents' action of transferring applicant is discriminatory and in violation of rights of differently-abled person under RPWD Act, 2016, rules, OMs issued by DoP&T and deserve to be set aside so far relates to the applicant.
CONCLUSION
29. For all the aforesaid reasons, the issue is decided in favour of the applicant. I am of the view that there is merit in the present OA and same deserves to be allowed.
30. Resultantly, the impugned transfer order dated 26.07.2024 (Annexure A-1), order dated 23.9.2024 (Annexure A-2) and consequential thereof order dated 28.3.2025 qua the applicant are set aside and quashed, upholding the recommendation dated 25.06.2024 of Placement Committee for rotational transfer.
31. The Original Application is accordingly allowed.
24 O.A. No. 4933/202432. As a sequel thereof, pending Miscellaneous Application(s), if any, also stands disposed off.
33. There shall be no order as to costs.
(Ajay Pratap Singh) Member (J) /na/