Case Note & Summary
The writ petition was filed by K. Parthasarathi challenging a transfer order dated 25.05.2023, which moved him from Vellore to Salem. The petitioner argued that he was entitled to remain in his position due to his mother's 60% disability, as per Government Order No.107. The respondents contended that the petitioner had already served beyond the maximum retention period of five years and that his mother was not listed as a dependent on the ration card, undermining his claim. The petitioner acknowledged the absence of his mother's name on the ration card but argued that their shared address indicated dependency. The court noted that the petitioner could not be considered the sole caregiver since his mother had other sons living with her. Ultimately, the court found no grounds to interfere with the transfer order but permitted the petitioner to submit a fresh representation for consideration. The writ petition was dismissed without costs, and the connected miscellaneous petitions were also closed.
Headnote
A) Administrative Law - Transfer of Government Employee - Grounds for Quashing Transfer Order - Article 226 of the Constitution of India - The petitioner contended that the transfer order was invalid as he was entitled to remain in the same posting due to his mother's disability. The court found that the petitioner had exceeded the maximum retention period and dismissed the petition, allowing the petitioner to submit a fresh representation for consideration (Paras 6-7).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the transfer order was sustainable given the petitioner's claim of dependency on a differently abled person.
Final Decision
The writ petition was dismissed, and the petitioner was given liberty to submit a fresh representation for consideration.
Law Points
- Article 226 of the Constitution of India
- Government Order No.107
- Personnel and Administrative Reforms (S) Department
