RANCHI, India, Dec. 14 -- Jharkhand High Court issued the following order on Nov. 14:

1. Heard.

2. Aggrieved by the dismissal of the Original Application by the Tribunal questioning the transfer, the petitioner has filed the instant writ petition. The only ground on which the petitioner has assailed the order passed by the Tribunal is that he is alone care giver to his elder disabled brother and further more that his son also is suffering from ailment. However, both these contentions have not found favour with the Tribunal as is evident from para 29-31 of the judgment which reads thus:

29. The applicant's mother, Smt. Bina Rani Gupta, is a government family pensioner, drawing pension after demise of her husband, Lt. Shri Badri Nath Ram, who also served in the same department. Mother of the applicant vide her representation dated 08.03.2022, has formally requested advance approval of family pension for life for her permanently disabled son, Shri Rajesh Kumar and also requested his inclusion in the PPO.

30. In the said representation dated 08.03.2022, mother of applicant nominated her younger son, Shri Subham Arya, as the caretaker who should receive and manage pension benefits on behalf of Shri Rakesh Kumar in the event of her death. Thus, the responsibility of caregiver of Shri Rajesh Kumar rest with her mother and in the event of her death with Shri Subham Arya.

31. It is understood that applicant has procured a certificate enrolment dated 29.06.2024 for caregiver to his disabled elder brother after his transfer/posting order dated 17.05.2024 to enable him to take shelter of the government policy on the subject of transfer of caregiver of disabled person. This fact is substantiated by the fact of details of family dated 09.08.2019 (Annexure-R/4) furnished by the applicant himself to the respondent authorities wherein the name of his elder brother (Shri Rajesh Kumar) and his mother Smt. Bina Rani Gupta are not found place. Further the applicant has not produced any valid certificate in support of his contentions of ailments of his son.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner would argue that the findings recorded by the Tribunal are perverse. However, we find no merit in this contention given the fact that the Tribunal has categorically found and it has otherwise not been disputed that the petitioner has a younger brother, namely, Subham Arya, who, in fact, has been nominated by the mother of the petitioner as a caretaker who should receive and manage the pension benefits on behalf of the elder brother of the petitioner i.e. Rajesh Kumar.

4. Moreover, it is more than settled that it is for the employee to choose between career prospects and family life especially when the job is of a transferable nature.

5. It is trite that transfer is an incidence of service and as long as the authority acts keeping in view the administrative exigency and taking into consideration the public interest as the paramount consideration, it has unfettered powers to effect transfer subject of course to certain disciplines. Once it is admitted that the petitioner is Central government employee and holds a transferable post then he is liable to be transferred from one place to the other anywhere within the Country.

6. A government servant holding a transferable post has no vested right to remain posted at one place or the other and courts should not ordinarily interfere with the orders of transfer instead affected party should approach the higher authorities in the department. Who should be transferred where and in what manner is for the appropriate authority to decide.

*Rest of the document can be viewed at: (https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/ecourtindiaHC/cases/display_pdf.php?filename=A9S7c5LDIsB6RXaCf816x3DUiSs2%2FiqJL%2FjYJZUJ5n%2BiEfGSj2vgaYUSUuqLDul9&caseno=WPC/5959/2025&cCode=1&cino=JHHC010279282025&state_code=7&appFlag=)

Disclaimer: Curated by HT Syndication.