In a recent ruling, the Allahabad High Court has held that a transfer order may be reconsidered if an employee’s child has a disability requiring specialized care. The decision, delivered by Justice Rajesh Singh Chauhan, emphasizes that the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016, provides a valid basis for reviewing an employee’s transfer when their child’s medical condition demands special attention.
Background of the Case
The petitioner, Amresh Yadav, who serves as a Principal Assistant in the office of the Regional Tourist Officer at Faizabad Division/Devipatan Division, was transferred to Gorakhpur by an order dated June 28, 2024, issued by the Directorate of Tourism, Uttar Pradesh. Mr. Yadav challenged this transfer through a writ petition (Writ-A No. 7120 of 2024) on the grounds that his seven-month-old son suffers from a congenital disability, clubfoot, which has significantly impaired his leg. The petitioner argued that the specialized treatment required for his son’s condition is available in Ayodhya, his original place of posting, and that frequent medical consultations necessitate his presence there.
Key Legal Issues Involved
1. Disability Consideration in Transfer Orders: The petitioner, represented by counsels Shivanshu Goswami, Atul Krishna, and Prerna Jalan, argued that the disability of his child should be considered a valid ground for staying his transfer. He cited the earlier decision of the Allahabad High Court in the case of Syeda Rukhsar Mariyam Rizvi vs. State of U.P. & Others (Writ-A No. 460 of 2021), where it was held that a child’s disability falls within the purview of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016, and should be a valid factor when considering an employee’s transfer grievance.
2. Procedure for Challenging Transfer Orders: The court also referred to the Supreme Court’s decision in S.C. Saxena vs. Union of India & Others (2006) 9 SCC 583, which mandates that an employee should first comply with the transfer order by joining the transferred post and may then submit a representation to the competent authority, which must be duly considered.
Key Observations by the Court
– On the Merits of the Case: “Since the petitioner has already submitted his joining at the transferred place pursuant to the impugned transfer order, the transfer order may not be interfered with at this stage, but noting the fact that the petitioner is still having his bonafide grievance, which appears to be genuine, he may prefer a representation,” the court noted.
– On Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016: The court reaffirmed that the rights and needs of a child with a disability should be a valid consideration in transfer matters, reflecting its earlier stance in similar cases.
Court’s Decision and Observations
Justice Chauhan, while disposing of the petition, noted that although Mr. Yadav had joined his new post in Gorakhpur, his grievance regarding his son’s medical needs appeared genuine and bona fide. The court did not interfere with the transfer order at this stage but allowed the petitioner to make a fresh representation to the Director General, Directorate of Tourism, Uttar Pradesh, to reconsider his case.
The court directed that, if such a representation is submitted within a week, the competent authority must address it “sympathetically, strictly in accordance with law by passing a speaking and reasoned order” within three weeks of receiving the representation.
The petitioner was represented by a team of lawyers including Shivanshu Goswami, Atul Krishna, and Prerna Jalan, while the state was represented by Ms. Deepshiksha, Chief Standing Counsel-II. The case was heard and decided by Justice Rajesh Singh Chauhan of the Allahabad High Court, Lucknow Bench, under case number Writ-A No. 7120 of 2024.
