Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Upendra Tiwari vs Bsnl on 13 April, 2026
1 O.A No. 4944/2025
Item 41 (C-3)
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
PRINCIPAL BENCH, NEW DELHI
O.A. No. 4944/2025
Reserved on : 24.03.2026
Pronounced on : 13.04.2026
Hon'ble Mrs. Harvinder Kaur Oberoi, Member (J)
Hon'ble Dr. Sumeet Jerath, Member (A)
UPENDRA TIWARI,
AGED 55 YEARS,
S/O LATE. SH. RAM ASHISH TIWARI,
R/O H17, GROUND FLOOR, SOUTH CITY 2,
GURGAON SOHNA ROAD,
OPPOSITE NARAYANA E TECHNO SCHOOL,
SECTOR 49 GURGAON, HARYANA-122018. ......Applicant
(By Advocate : Mr. Saaket Jain with Ms. Shivangi Anand, Mr. Parth Taran
Singh and Ms. Swati Jain)
Vs.
1. BHARAT SANCHAR NIGAM LIMITED
THROUGH CHAIRMAN CUM MANAGING DIRECTOR,
BSNL, 3RD FLOOR, BSNL CORPORATE OFFICE,
BHARAT SANCHAR BHAWAN, JANPATH.
NEW DELHI-110001.
2. DIRECTOR (HR),
BSNL, 3RD FLOOR, BSNL CORPORATE OFFICE,
BHARAT SANCHAR BHAWAN, JANPATH,
NEW DELHI-110001.
3. AGM (PERSONNEL)
BSNL, 4TH FLOOR, BSNL CORPORATE OFFICE,
BHARAT SANCHAR BHAWAN, JANPATH,
NEW DELHI-110001. ....Respondents
(By Advocate : Mr. Ashok Kumar Poddar)
2026.04.16 16:52:18
MAYA B TARAGI
+05'30'
2 O.A No. 4944/2025
Item 41 (C-3)
ORDER
Hon'ble Dr. Sumeet Jerath, Member (A) :
This is the second round of litigation. The instant OA has been filed by the applicant under section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 seeking the following reliefs :
"A. Quash or set aside the impugned speaking order dated 05.12.2025 passed by Respondent No.1.
B. Quash or set aside the impugned transfer order dated 05.12.2025 passed by Respondent No.1 qua Applicant at Serial No.2 C. Quash or set aside the impugned relieving order dated 11.12.2025 passed by Respondent No. 1.
D. Direct the Respondents to grant benefit of Clause 6(i) of the BSNL Transfer Policy to Applicant and accordingly, grant him exemption from the impugned transfer.
E. Direct the Respondents to post the Applicant at Corporate Office, New Delhi on a similar post that commensurates to his level or at any other place closer to Gurgaon, in case someone else has been posted at Applicant's place.
F. Pass any other order this Hon'ble tribunal may deem fit."
2. This OA was heard by the Coordinate Bench of this Tribunal on 23.12.2025 and the following order was passed :-
"Heard learned counsel for both the parties.
2. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the present OA has been filed against the order dated 05.12.2025 passed by respondent No.1. It is relevant to mention that order dated 05.12.2025 has been passed in persuance to order dated 16.09.2025 wherein, the respondents are directed to decide the applicant's representations dated 24.11.2021 and 22.05.2025. Strictly in accordance with law and clause 6.1 of the BSNL Transfer Policy on passing a reasoned and speaking order.
3. Learned counsel for the applicant draws our attention to Para 5 of the impugned order wherein the respondents have distinguished the case of the applicant on the ground that the brother the applicant is financially independent. Therefore, he is not a dependent family member. In the case of the applicant that earlier, the mother of the applicant was the caregiver; however, 2026.04.16 16:52:18 MAYA B TARAGI +05'30' 3 O.A No. 4944/2025 Item 41 (C-3) she expired on 08.01.2019, and thereafter the applicant became the sole caregiver of his brother, who is admittedly suffering from Mental illness.
4. The issue remains whether financially independent person requires a caregiver or not. In these circumstances, the respondents are directed to maintain the status qua and not to take any coercive action against the applicant till the next date of hearing.
5. Learned counsel for the respondents seeks a weeks' time to file a detailed reply.
6. List on 08.01.2026.
Order Dasti."
3. Subsequently, we had heard this matter on 08.01.2026 and the following order was passed :-
"Learned counsel for the applicant submits that pursuant to an earlier order of this Tribunal, the respondents were directed to consider the representation of the applicant. The said representation has since been considered and rejected.
Learned counsel for the respondents, however, submits that the representation has not been rejected; rather, the transfer order of the applicant has been modified from Dhenkanal, Odisha to Bhubaneswar.
Learned counsel for the applicant reiterates that the so-called modification of the transfer order amounts to rejection of the representation, since the applicant is the sole caregiver of his disabled brother who is residing at Gurgaon. The applicant had specifically sought a choice posting at a place from where he could take care of his brother and had sought exemption under the applicable transfer norms. It is submitted that the respondents have rejected the representation in violation of the said norms.
At this stage, learned counsel for the respondents seeks two weeks' time for filing reply. Time as sought is granted. However, the respondents are also directed to place on record, along with the reply, the reasons which weighed with them for modifying the transfer order and the authority under which such modification from Dhenkanal, Odisha to Bhubaneswar was made.
List under orders category on 10.02.2026.
IR, if any, shall continue till further orders."
2026.04.16 16:52:18 MAYA B TARAGI +05'30' 4 O.A No. 4944/2025 Item 41 (C-3)
4. The factual matrix of the case as per the learned counsel for the applicant is that the applicant is presently working as Sr. General Manager in BSNL. The service conditions relating to transfer of the employees are governed by the BSNL Transfer Policy dated 07.05.2008, as amended from time to time. The said policy, inter alia provides for exemption from transfer in cases where an employee is a caregiver of a dependent person with disability. On 26.10.2021, the applicant was transferred from Gurgaon (now Gurugram) to Karnal. However, considering his role as caregiver to his mentally ill brother (chronic psychosis), the respondents modified his posting on 08.11.2021 and accommodated him at BSNL Corporate Office, New Delhi. Subsequently, DoP&T guidelines dated 02.02.2024 and amendments in BSNL Transfer Policy dated 14.03.2024 were issued which provided protection/exemption from transfer for employees who are caregivers of persons with disabilities. Despite this, the applicant was again transferred vide order dated 30.05.2025 from New Delhi to Dhenkanal (Odisha). Aggrieved by which, the applicant submitted representations on 02.06.2025 and 23.07.2025 requesting posting near Gurugram and also provided seven alternative choice stations for transfer. On the same day, i.e. on 02.06.2025 his case was also recommended on medical grounds by senior officers. But to no avail. Aggrieved, the applicant filed OA No. 3301/2025 before this Tribunal which was disposed of on 16.09.2025 with a direction to the respondents to consider his representation in accordance with the transfer policy and to pass a reasoned order, as also to restrain coercive action against him. In compliance thereto, the applicant submitted a detailed representation dated 23.09.2025 along with medical documents of 2026.04.16 16:52:18 MAYA B TARAGI +05'30' 5 O.A No. 4944/2025 Item 41 (C-3) his disabled brother. However, instead of granting a nearby posting, the respondents vide order dated 05.12.2025 modified the transfer from Dhenkanal to Bhubaneswar and rejected his representation through a speaking order on the same date. Thereafter, the applicant was relieved on 11.12.2025. The counsel contended that the impugned orders are arbitrary, violative of Clause 6(1) of the BSNL Transfer Policy and DoP&T guidelines, and have been passed in disregard of the Tribunal's directions, as his request for posting near Gurugram was not properly considered. Hence, the applicant has again approached this Tribunal through the instant OA.
5. During the course of arguments, the counsel of the applicant argued assiduously on the following grounds to support his case :-
"A. The applicant herein is aggrieved with the impugned speaking order dated 05.12.2025 in so far as it rejects the representation dated 23.09.2025 (made in compliance of order dated 16.09.2025 passed by this Hon'ble Tribunal in OA No. 3301/2025) seeking modification/cancellation of transfer order dated 30.05.2025 on the sole ground that since the applicant's disabled brother is financially dependent (availing disability pension) therefore the benefit of Clause 6(i) of the Transfer Policy cannot be given to the applicant! B. The applicant who is entitled to exemption from transfer under the policy on the ground that he is a sole care giver to his disabled brother (Chronic psychosis) is also aggrieved with the impugned transfer order dated 05.12.2025 modifying his place of posting from Dhenkanal, Orissa to Bhubaneswar. In doing that the respondents not only rejected the representation seeking exemption from transfer under Clause 6(1) of the Policy but they have made mockery of the entire process by now transferring him to Bhubaneswar. Finally, the applicant is also aggrieved by the impugned relieving order dated 05.12.2025 issued by the respondent No.1.
C. Clause 6(i) of the BSNL Transfer Policy as amended on 14.03.2024 states as follows: Clause 6(1): An employee who is a care giver of dependent daughter/son/parents/ spouse/brother sister with 'Specified Disabilities, as certified by the certifying authority as a person with benchmark disabilities as per Section 2(r) of the RPWD Act-2016, may be exempted from the routine exercise of transfer/rotational transfer subject to administrative constraints.
2026.04.16 16:52:18 MAYA B TARAGI +05'30' 6 O.A No. 4944/2025 Item 41 (C-3) D. It is submitted that as has been conveyed to the respondents, the applicant's younger brother (Om Prakash Tiwari) who is 45 Years old is suffering from Chronic psychosis. Chronic psychosis refers to persistent or recurring psychotic symptoms that are not temporary, often associated with conditions like schizophrenia and schizoaffective disorder, though other factors like brain damage, substance misuse, or medical conditions can also contribute. Key symptoms include hallucinations, delusions, disordered thinking, and social withdrawal etc. E. The applicant's brother is totally dependent on the Applicant and owing to his mental condition, if applicant is not around even his routine activities are disturbed. His disability certificate apart from stating that he suffers from Chronic psychosis mentions his disability 75 percent. Thus, in terms of Section 2(r) of the RPwD Act-2016, the applicant's brother disability has been specifically measured as 75 percent.
F. The applicant's brother is suffering from a mental condition which is clearly covered under mental illness as provided in Clause 6(1) of the Transfer Policy. Further it comes under the specified disability category as mention under Section 2(zc) read with Schedule of the RPWD Act-2016: Section 2(zc) "specified disability" means the disabilities as specified in the Schedule and further under schedule Sr. No. 3 provides the following with regards to mental illness:
3. Mental behavior, "mental illness" means a substantial disorder of thinking, mood, perception, orientation or memory that grossly impairs judgment, behavior, capacity to recognize reality or ability to meet the ordinary demands of life, but does not include retardation which is a condition of arrested or incomplete development of mind of a person. specially characterized by subnormality of intelligence.
G. Clearly, the applicant is sole care giver to his younger brother. In terms of Clause 6(i) he is entitled to exemption from the routine exercise of transfer rotational transfer. Same had been explained to the respondents vide detailed representations dated 02.06.2025 & 25.07.2025 but no action had been taken by the respondents.
H. The impugned transfer order & speaking order dated 05.12.2025 is a case of non application of mind on the part of respondents as the applicant himself has shown the willingness to join at another place with the only caveat that he may be posted some place nearby Gurgaon so that as a caregiver, he is able to discharge his duties towards hi ailing brother. In all fairness, when PG. Pers, asked for three choices, he gave seven choices. This is despite his entitlement for exemption under Clause 6(i) of the BSNL Transfer Policy. In fact this Hon'ble Tribunal vide order dated 16.09.2025 had directed them to consider the request of the applicant regarding posting him at nearby place (out of seven 2026.04.16 16:52:18 MAYA B TARAGI +05'30' 7 O.A No. 4944/2025 Item 41 (C-3) choices given) so that the applicant is able to take care of his physically disabled brother but as is clear from the order, said request has not been considered by the respondents. I. Further it is submitted that not considering the applicant's request under Clause 6(1) of the Transfer Policy goes against the spirit of the RPWD Act-2016. On a broader level, the Act has this inherent objective of minimising the difficulties faced by the persons with disabilities. On one hand Clause 6(i) of Transfer Policy issued by respondents refers to RPwD Act-2016 [Section 2(ze) read with schedule] in providing for exemption to caregiver from transfer but on the other hand it does not consider the case of the applicant under the said clause. Such contradiction on the part of respondents further gives the legitimacy to the case of the applicant that he has been transferred arbitrarily with mala fide intent.
J. The respondents have denied the benefit of Clause 6(i) of the Transfer Policy to the respondents, for the reason that Clause 6(i) of the Transfer Policy is applicable only in case of dependent family member and since the applicant's disabled brother is drawing disabled pension therefore the applicant is not entitled for exemption under Clause 6(1), Nothing can be more illogical than this. This narrow interpretation of the word "dependent" so as to deny the benefit of exemption to the applicant which he is otherwise entitled under the law speaks a lot about approach of the respondents towards persons with disabilities. K. Even the simple meaning of the word 'dependent' is an individual who relies on support from another individual and usually cannot exist or sustain themselves independently without the aid or support of someone else. Merely because a disabled person is getting disability pension will he cease to be dependent? It also needs to be mentioned that the respondents authorities despite being aware about the mental condition of the brother of the applicant have shown such insensitivity towards the matter. In fact the letter dated 23.07.2025, wherein the applicant himself has stated that his brother is financially dependent has been taken out of context and has not been considered in its entirety. In fact the said letter clearly says that applicant's brother is fully dependent on him due to his chronic mental condition and it further says after the death of his mother in 2019, the applicant became the sole care giver.
L. The representation dated 24.11.2021 for inclusion of applicant's brother details in service records is still pending and till date no action has been taken by the respondents. In the impugned speaking order dated 05.12.2025 as a reply to this it is stated that since the representation dated 24.11.2021 has been made after his transfer from Gurgaon to Karnal (26.10.2021) therefore his request cannot be considered. Updating the details of family members in service records is independent of any transfer or promotion. Same ought to be decided on its own merits. It is beyond comprehension as to how Respondents have taken this decision of not deciding the said representation despite 2026.04.16 16:52:18 MAYA B TARAGI +05'30' 8 O.A No. 4944/2025 Item 41 (C-3) there being a clear mandate and direction in terms of order dated 16.09.2025 passed by this Hon'ble Tribunal in OA No. 3301 of 2025. Para 11 of the said order says:
11. The competent authority amongst the respondents shall consider and decide the applicant's representation(s) dated 24.11.2021 and May 2025, as supplemented by the fresh representation, strictly in accordance with law and Clause 6.1 of the BSNL Transfer Policy, by passing a reasoned and speaking order within four weeks from the date of receipt of such representation.
M. That further, the argument that during the applicant's stint at Davangere, Karnataka, his brother stayed with him and, therefore, he can now also manage in Odisha, has no substance. At that time applicant's mother was alive who used to take care of her disabled son. Only after her death on 08.01.2019, the applicant became the sole care giver to his dependent & disabled brother. The applicant had joined at Davengere, Karnataka on promotion in January2018. His wife and his sons were staying in Gurgaon due to children's schooling. The applicant moved to Davangere along with his brother and mother. Since his mother was a care giver to his brother he tried to manage it there but as luck would have it, his mother died on 08.01.2019 and immediately his brother was sent back to Gurgaon and the applicant himself came back and joined at Gurgaon on 14.04.2019. Therefore the applicant became sole caregiver to his dependent & disabled brother on 08.01.2019."
6. During the course of arguments, the counsel of the applicant, to reinforce his case handed across the Bar the Judgment of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in WP(C) 7318/2021 in Shambu Nath Rai vs. Union of India and others which inter alia states as follows :-
"14.2 Para 3(VI)(h) of MHA OM dated 7 September 2017, as replaced by MHA OM dated 19 March 2018, clearly exempts a government servant, who is a care giver of a disabled child or a disabled dependent, from routine transfer and rotational transfer, subject to administrative constrains.
14.3 We unhesitatingly reject Mr. Acharya's repeated submission that the petitioner has already been granted the benefit of exemption as contained in para 3(VI)(h) of the OM dated 7 September 2017 as amended by MHA OM dated 19 March 2018. Mr. Bajaj is perfectly correct in his submission that the OM does not envisage a maximum number of occasions when the benefit of the said dispensation is to be extended. That benefit continues so long as the employee is dependent or is a care giver of a disabled child or disabled dependent person. There can be no question of denying the benefit of para 3(VI)(h) on the ground 2026.04.16 16:52:18 MAYA B TARAGI +05'30' 9 O.A No. 4944/2025 Item 41 (C-3) that benefit of the said clause has been extended a number of times earlier. A care giver of a disabled child or dependent is entitled, in perpetuity, so long as he continues to remain the care giver of such disabled child/dependent, to the benefit of the said clause.
14.4 The fallaey in the respondent's approach is, to our mind, one of perception. The respondent is regarding the dispensation, in para 3(VI)(h) of the OM dated 7 September 2017 (as amended by OM dated 19 March 2018) as a dispensation which benefits the employee in insulating him against transfer. This perception is fundamentally misconceived. The OM has been issued in the interests of the disabled child/dependent, not in the interests of the caregiver. The interests of the disabled child/dependent have, therefore, to be accorded primacy. So long as the child or dependent continues to suffer from disability, she, or he, would be entitled to the benefit of a caregiver in proximity. There is, therefore, no question of estimating the number of times that the benefit of the OM has been extended to the caregiver.
16. Resultantly, the grounds on which the respondents have, in the impugned communication dated 4 April 2025, rejected the petitioner's request for being posted at Delhi or, in the alternative, at Kolkata or Bangalore, cannot sustain. We are of the view that, in setting out the said reasons, the respondents have not taken into account the primacy which is required to be accorded to the interest of persons with disabilities, in the present societal and statutory paradigm. There can be no compromising on their interests. Of course, should administrative constraints render it impossible to post the petitioner at a place where super speciality hospitals and other necessary facilities, to ensure the well being of his son, are available, such constraints may have to take precedence. These must, however, we reiterate, be constraints so overwhelming as would outweigh the interests of the petitioner's son, or his due entitlements under the PwD Act.
17. For the aforesaid reasons, we allow this writ petition in the following terms:
(i) The decision of the respondent as communicated to the petitioner by order dated 4/6 April 2025 is quashed and set aside.
(ii) The respondents are directed to forthwith relocate the petitioner to Delhi, if possible. In case it is not possible to locate the petitioner at Delhi, for administrative constraints as understood by us in the judgment hereinabove, a reasoned order citing such constraints would be issued. Even in that event the petitioner would be posted at one of the five places cited in para 2 of the order dated 22 June 2022 passed by this Court, preferably at Kolkata and Bangalore.
(iii) Necessary orders in this regard would be issued within a
(iii) period of three weeks from the date of uploading of this judgment on the website of this Court.
2026.04.16 16:52:18 MAYA B TARAGI +05'30' 10 O.A No. 4944/2025 Item 41 (C-3)
18. In order to ensure compliance, let a copy of this judgment be emailed to learned Counsel for the parties as soon as it is uploaded."
7. Per contra, the counsel of the respondents argued vociferously from his counter affidavit and highlighted para 5 which speaks about Bar on Judicial Review of Administrative Orders in the absence of Mala Fide or Mandatory Statutory Violation. To butress his arguments he relied upon the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in UOI vs. S L Abbas, (1993) 4 SCC 357 and in Shilpi Bose vs. State of Bihar, (1991) Supp (2) SCC 659. He further buttressed his arguments by citing decision of Allahabad High Court in Ashwani Kumar Shrivastava vs. Central Bank of India - 2003 (1) AWC 708 (All) wherein vide paras 36 to 40, the Hon'ble High Court held as under :-
"36. The aforesaid Government of India Memorandum while requiring the government employers to frame policies for exemptions to care givers from transfers employed the word "may", and further limits the applicability of the said policy with the phrase "administrative constraints". As per the said Government of India Office Memorandum, the employees who are seeking exemptions from transfer have to he "care giver" to their dependant daughter, sun, parents, spouse, brother, sister.
37. The phrase "administrative constraints" is also employed in the said Bank circular which regulates the transfers and exemptions for care givers, "Administrative constraints" qualifies the policy of exemptions for care givers, and states the restrictions in the exemptions from transfer granted to them. The said "administrative constraints" includes consideration of public purpose served by the establishment, institutional interests which are catered to by the policy of transfers, and also encompasses the rights of other employees.
38. The composite scheme of Disabilities Act, 2016, the Government of India Office Memorandum dated 08.10.2018 and the bank circular dated 28.06.2022, does not place absolute restraints or perpetual exemptions from transfer for care givers.
39. The reasons for not creating a scheme for complete ban on transfers of care givers are not far to seek. A blanket ban on transfers will fully denude the employer of the power of transfer, and have a disproportionately negative impact on institutional interests. A full embargo on transfers of care givers" would thus 2026.04.16 16:52:18 MAYA B TARAGI +05'30' 11 O.A No. 4944/2025 Item 41 (C-3) impose onerous demands on the institution and create a disarray in its functioning or cause disruption in the institutional policies.
40. Such extreme interpretation of the policy of exemptions from transfers will lead to supersession of institutional needs, degrade the capacity of institutions to achieve the public purpose they serve, negate the rights of other employees, and ultimately would be detrimental to public interest."
Also the Judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No 4129 of 2024 -- Sri Pubi Lombi vs. The State of Arunachal Pradesh & others has been relied upon by him. Paras 12, 13 and 14 of which are reproduced below :-
"12. As per the counter affidavit filed by the State Government. even before us it is specifically averred that the order of transfer dated 20.04.2023 modifying the previous order dated 15.11.2022 has been issued in public interest after due application of mind and without any malafide intentions. As far as the stance of respondent no. 5 herein is concerned, the plea of malafide against transferring authority has not been agitated even before this Court or the High Court. Further, the impugned transfer order is also not alleged to be violative of any prescribed statutory provision.
13. In view of the stand taken by the Government and in absence of plea of malafide and no averment regarding violation of statutory provision taken by the private respondent before the High Court, interference as made by the Division Bench setting aside the well-reasoned judgment of the Single Judge is not justified merely on the unsubstantiated pretext that the proposed modification is arbitrary or without application of mind for the sole reason that it was mooted by the MLA. In our view the Division Bench has committed an error in setting aside the judgment of the learned Single Judge.
14. Accordingly, the Civil Appeal is hereby allowed, the judgment and order dated 22.09.2023 passed by the Division Bench of the High Court is hereby set aside, restoring the order dated 11.07.2023 of the learned Single Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of."
8. The counsel of the applicant countered the above with strong arguments from his rejoinder stating that the applicant had challenged the impugned speaking order dated 05.12.2025 whereby his request for 2026.04.16 16:52:18 MAYA B TARAGI +05'30' 12 O.A No. 4944/2025 Item 41 (C-3) cancellation/modification of transfer was rejected despite being the sole caregiver of his 75% mentally disabled brother suffering from chronic psychosis. He contended that the applicant is entitled to exemption under Clause 6(i) of the BSNL Transfer Policy, but the respondents denied the benefit on an erroneous ground that receipt of disability pension negates "dependency." He further argued that dependency in cases of severe mental illness cannot be restricted to financial criteria as his brother is wholly dependent on him for care and supervision. According to him, the respondents failed to comply with Tribunal's earlier directions to meaningfully consider the applicant's representations and posting choices. Further, the impugned order reflects non-application of mind, misinterpretation of policy, and disregard of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016. The change of posting to Bhubaneswar cannot be called fair or proper relief because the main request of exemption from transfer as a caregiver was wrongly rejected without proper reasoning. The respondents have changed their stand again and again, which makes their decision unfair and unclear.
9. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the rival submissions; examined the documents on record and perused the relevant Judgments of Hon'ble Apex Court and High Courts. As per catena of Judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court in -
(i) Shanti Kumari vs. Regional Deputy Director, Health Services, Patna Division, Patna - (1981) 2 SCC 72;
(ii) B. Vardha Rao vs. State of Karnataka & Others - (1986) 4 SCC 131 and
(iii) Shilpi Bose & Others vs. State of Bihar - 1991 Supp (2) SCC 659 2026.04.16 16:52:18 MAYA B TARAGI +05'30' 13 O.A No. 4944/2025 Item 41 (C-3) It is a settled principle in administrative law and service jurisprudence that transfer is a normal feature and ordinary incident of service that does not in any way alter any of the service conditions of a Govt. employee to his/her disadvantage. Transfer is done by the Govt./PSU on grounds of public interest and administrative reasons. Interfering in transfer matters by the Courts and Tribunals would throw a spanner in the works and log jam the wheels of administration. Courts and Tribunals should therefore interfere on only two grounds :- (i) When the transfer order is vitiated by mala fide, arbitrary and discriminatory viruses, and
(ii) when the transfer order is against the transfer policy and rules and regulations of the land.
We have observed that this transfer order is against the tone and tenor; letter and spirit of :-
(a) DOPT Office Memorandum No. 36035/44/2023-Estt (Res-II) dated 02.02.2024, the relevant excerpts of which are quoted below :-
"I. Exemption from routine exercise of transfer/rotational transfer in respect of Government employee, who is a caregiver of Person with Disability dependents :
(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.
(ii) The term Specified Disability as defined in the Schedule to the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016, covers (1) Locomotor disability including leprosy cured person. cerebral palsy, dwarfism, muscular dystrophy and Acid attack victims
(ii) Blindness ( Low vision (iv) Deaf (v) Hard of hearing (vi) Speech and language disabilities (vii) Intellectual disability including specific learning disabilities and autism spectrum disorder (vii) Mental illness (ix) Disability caused due to (a) Neurological conditions such as Multiple sclerosis and 2026.04.16 16:52:18 MAYA B TARAGI +05'30' 14 O.A No. 4944/2025 Item 41 (C-3) Parkinson's disease (h) Blood disorder Haemophilia, Thalassemia and Sickle cell-disease and (x) Multiple disabilities (more than one of the above specified disabilities) including deaf blindness and any other category of 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 caregiver of dependent daughter/son/parents/spouse/brother/sister as stated in Para (1) above.
(b) BSNL communication No. BSNL-CO-Pers/15(11)/2/2024-PERS1 dated 14.03.2024 wherein vide Clause 6(i) and sub para 3 it has been stated as under :-
"Clause 6 (i) - An employee who is a care giver of dependent daughter/son/parents/spouse/brother/sister with 'Specified Disabilities', as certified by the certifying authority as a person with benchmark disabilities as per Section 2(r) of the RPWD Act-2016, may be exempted from the routine exercise of transfer / rotational transfer subject to administrative constraints. The term 'Specified Disability' in the Schedule to RPwD Act-2016 include......
1. Physical Disability...................................................................................
...........................................................................................................................
3. Mental illness"
10. We appreciate that the Respondents have diluted the transfer order and modified the applicant's transfer order from the remote district of Dhenkanal to the State Capital of Odhisha - Bhubaneswar. But in our considered view this would not meet the ends of justice as the applicant's brother currently based in Gurugram and used to Dr. Sonal Bali at VIMHANS Hospital in Gurugram may not adapt to the new medical eco system in Bhubaneswar. We have also noted that the applicant has just about 3½ years to retire (31.12.2029) and has represented / requested for transfer to any of the 7 places below :-
2026.04.16 16:52:18 MAYA B TARAGI +05'30' 15 O.A No. 4944/2025 Item 41 (C-3)
(i) New Delhi
(ii) Faridabad
(iii) Gurugram
(iv) MTNL BA area New Delhi under Haryana Circle
(v) Rewari
(vi) Noida
(vii) Ghaziabad so that he can work at any of the 7 places above during the day and return to his house in Gurugram by the end of the day to give care to his brother as the sole care giver.
11. We have carefully perused the speaking order of BSNL No. BSNLCO-PER1/20(11)/4/2025-PERS1 dated 05.12.2025 and noted that this order does not fully capture the letter and spirit of (i) DoPT OM No. 36035/44/2023-Estt(Res-II) dated 02.02.2024 and (ii) BSNL Communication No. BSNLCO-PERS/15(11)/2/2024-PERS1 dated 14.03.2024. It also does not show empathy to the applicant who is the sole care giver to his younger unmarried brother who is totally dependant of upon him (after the demise of his mother) and is getting care and attention from a Doctor Dr Sonal Bali at Vimhans hospital based in Gurugram. We have also noted that the disabled brother gets a disability pension of Rs 30,000/- per month and thus cannot be shown as a dependant of the applicant as per CGHS norms where the monthly income of the dependant should be less than Rs. 9,000/-. However, this is a case not of financial dependence but, physical and emotional dependence. It is a case of a 'Lakshman' dependent upon 'Ram' and thus needs to be viewed from the lens of RPWD Act, 2016 and not CGHS 2026.04.16 16:52:18 MAYA B TARAGI +05'30' 16 O.A No. 4944/2025 Item 41 (C-3) rules. Our constitution under Article 21 has enshrined and embodied the Right to life and in our considered opinion this case fits fairly and squarely under this article.
12. In the light of the above, we are of the considered opinion that the balance of convenience in the instant OA lies with the applicant. The instant OA has merit; deserves to be allowed and is accordingly allowed. We hereby quash and set aside the impugned speaking-cum-transfer order dated 05.12.2025 qua the applicant and consequently, the relieving order dated 11.12.2025 is also quashed and set aside. We further direct the respondents to consider granting the benefit of clause 6(i) of the BSNL Transfer Policy to the applicant and consider posting him in any of the seven places of his choice as he is now at the fag end of his career retiring in about 3½ years time. This exercise should be completed within a period of three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. MAs if any are also disposed of in similar manner. However, there shall be no order as to cost.
(Dr. Sumeet Jerath) (Harvinder Kaur Oberoi)
Member (A) Member (J)
/Mbt/
2026.04.16 16:52:18
MAYA B TARAGI
+05'30'