The Madhya Pradesh High Court has reinforced the obligation of state authorities to comply with their own disability protection policies when transferring government employees. In a significant ruling, the Court directed a fresh consideration of a transfer order against a handicapped employee, emphasizing that administrative exigency cannot override statutory and policy-based safeguards for persons with disabilities.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The petitioner, Remsingh Parmar, a government employee serving in the Rural Engineering Services, was issued an order dated 16.06.2026 (Annexure P/1) transferring him from his place of posting in Barwani District to Dewas District, both in Madhya Pradesh. The petitioner, who has a certified permanent disability of 40% in his left lower limb, challenged this transfer as violative of the State Government’s Transfer Policy dated 22.05.2026 (Annexure P/5), which explicitly provides protection to employees with disabilities of 40% or more under Clause 28.
Key Facts
- The petitioner was appointed to the Rural Engineering Services and has been serving at Barwani District since 2013.
- He holds a disability certificate issued by the Vocational Rehabilitation Centre for Handicapped, Jabalpur, dated prior to the transfer order, certifying a permanent disability of 40% (Annexure P/3).
- On 19.06.2026, the petitioner submitted a written representation (Annexure P/4) to the competent authority, drawing attention to his disability and requesting exemption from transfer under Clause 28 of the policy.
- The transfer order dated 16.06.2026 was issued without any reference to or consideration of the petitioner’s representation or his certified disability.
- The State did not dispute the authenticity of the disability certificate or the existence of Clause 28 in its own policy.
Procedural History
- 16.06.2026: Transfer order issued by the competent authority, directing petitioner to report to Dewas District.
- 19.06.2026: Petitioner submitted representation seeking exemption under Clause 28 of the Transfer Policy.
- 01.07.2026: Writ Petition No. 22463 of 2026 filed before the High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Indore.
Relief Sought
The petitioner sought quashing of the transfer order dated 16.06.2026, and a direction to the State to reconsider his transfer in light of his certified disability under Clause 28 of the Transfer Policy, while permitting him to continue in his current posting.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether the State Government is bound to apply its own policy protecting employees with 40% or more disability from arbitrary transfer, and whether administrative exigency can override such a policy-based safeguard.
Arguments Presented
For the Petitioner
Learned counsel for the petitioner relied on Clause 28 of the State’s Transfer Policy dated 22.05.2026, which explicitly provides protection to employees with disability of 40% or more. He submitted that the petitioner’s representation dated 19.06.2026 was ignored, violating principles of natural justice and the State’s own administrative guidelines. He argued that the policy was not merely directory but a binding administrative commitment to reasonable accommodation under the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016.
For the Respondent
Learned counsel for the State contended that the transfer was made on administrative exigency and that the petitioner had been posted at Barwani since 2013, implying no hardship. No specific rebuttal was made to the existence or applicability of Clause 28, nor was any justification provided for disregarding the representation.
The Court's Analysis
The Court examined the undisputed facts: the petitioner’s certified 40% permanent disability, the existence of Clause 28 in the State’s own policy, and the failure of the competent authority to consider the representation submitted prior to the transfer order. The Court held that when a government formulates a policy for the benefit of a vulnerable category, it cannot be treated as a mere guideline. The policy, once adopted, becomes a binding administrative standard.
"The certificate of disability (Annexure P/3) clearly provides that the petitioner is suffering permanent disability in his left lower limb to the extent of 40%. As such, the case deserves to be considered in terms of Clause 28 of the transfer policy."
The Court emphasized that the State’s failure to even acknowledge the representation amounted to a violation of the principle of audi alteram partem. Administrative exigency, while a valid consideration, cannot be invoked to bypass a specific protective provision meant for persons with disabilities. The Court further noted that the policy was consistent with the broader legislative intent under the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016, which mandates reasonable accommodation in public employment.
The Verdict
The petition was allowed. The Court directed: (i) the petitioner to submit a fresh representation to the Competent Authority within seven days, along with a copy of this order and supporting documents; (ii) the Competent Authority to decide the representation within three weeks of its filing; and (iii) the petitioner to continue in his present posting at Barwani District until a final decision is rendered.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Policy Commitments Are Binding
- Government departments cannot treat internal policies as optional when they benefit protected categories like persons with disabilities.
- Any policy containing specific protections must be applied in good faith, and failure to consider it constitutes arbitrariness under Article 14.
Representation Must Be Considered
- A written representation raising a policy-based right cannot be ignored without reasons.
- Practitioners must ensure that such representations are formally recorded and acknowledged, and should cite the exact policy clause in all correspondence.
Reasonable Accommodation Is Not Discretionary
- Transfers of employees with disabilities must be assessed through the lens of reasonable accommodation.
- Courts will intervene where administrative convenience overrides statutory or policy-based protections for persons with disabilities.
