The Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) has quashed the transfer of Pranjal Patil, India's first visually impaired woman IAS officer, from Delhi to Arunachal Pradesh [Pranjal Patil Vs Union of India].
Judicial Member Rajveer Singh Verma ruled that the government cannot mechanically apply routine transfer rules without considering the special needs of employees with disabilities.
The government's obligation to provide reasonable accommodation under the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016, takes precedence over administrative transfer guidelines, the tribunal said.
"Applying to a totally blind officer, without individual assessment, the same tenure rule that applies to able-bodied officers is the treatment of unequals as equals which the Hon'ble Supreme Court held to be violative of Article 14 in Net Ram Yadav," the order stated.
The November 4 ruling came on an application filed by Patil, a 2017-batch IAS officer who has had no perception of light since childhood.
Patil was initially allocated the Kerala cadre. In 2018, her request for an inter-cadre transfer to the AGMUT cadre was accepted under a policy applicable to officers with disabilities.
She joined the Delhi segment in January 2020 to access specialised medical treatment and social support.
However, the Ministry of Home Affairs transferred her to Arunachal Pradesh in September 2024. Her representation against the transfer was subsequently rejected.
Before the Tribunal, Patil argued that the transfer violated Section 20 of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act and Department of Personnel and Training instructions providing exemptions from rotational transfers for employees with disabilities.
She pointed out that she required continuous specialised ophthalmic care in Delhi and Noida. Her grandmother, who was her sole caregiver, had also died two days before the transfer order was issued.
The Central government defended the transfer, arguing that IAS officers belonging to the AGMUT cadre were required to serve in different segments, including difficult postings.
It submitted that Patil had spent nearly four years in Delhi without completing any tenure in a Category B segment. There was also a shortage of senior-scale officers in Arunachal Pradesh.
The Tribunal rejected these arguments.
It held that the requirement to complete tenure in a difficult posting could not itself constitute an administrative constraint justifying an exception to the protections available to employees with disabilities.
"To treat the requirement of the rotational policy as the constraint that defeats the exemption from that policy would render Part H meaningless," the Tribunal observed.
It further found that the government had failed to produce particulars regarding vacancies, sanctioned strength or the availability of other officers who could have been transferred to Arunachal Pradesh.
The CAT also noted that the government had failed to establish that comparable specialised medical facilities and support systems were available at Patil's proposed posting.
Referring to the Delhi High Court's ruling in Ircon International Ltd. v. Bhavneet Singh, the Tribunal reiterated that the burden of establishing genuine administrative constraints rested on the employer.
It also rejected the government's argument that Patil had accepted the possibility of postings across the AGMUT cadre when she sought the inter-cadre transfer in 2018.
"A statutory right cannot be waived by acceptance of a general transfer liability," the Tribunal said.
Hence, it set aside the transfer order, the relieving order and the rejection of Patil's representation.
It directed the authorities to continue or repost her in Delhi within four weeks of receiving a certified copy of the order.
Importantly, the CAT also protected Patil's future career prospects.
It ruled that her inability to complete tenure in difficult postings because of her disability could not adversely affect her promotion, empanelment, central deputation or other service benefits.
Any future proposal to transfer her outside Delhi would require a reasoned order, after hearing her and considering her medical condition, support requirements and alternative postings.
Advocates Priyanka Bhardwaj and MK Bhardwaj appeared for Patil. Advocate Gyanendra Singh represented the respondents.
[Read Judgment]