C.S. Dias JUDGMENT
C.S. Dias, J.
1. The petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking to set aside Ext P12 transfer order and to exempt him from rotational transfer on compassionate grounds.
2. The petitioner is an Officer in the Indian Railway Catering and Tourism Corporation (in short Corporation). He had joined the service of Corporation, as Assistant Manager, in July 2007.
3. It is the case of the petitioner that he is married to a Government employee in the Postal Department. They have two children in their wedlock. His older child suffers from mental illness combined with Autism Spectrum. The younger child is aged five years. His older son requires special attention and education.
4. According to the petitioner, during his tenure in the Corporation, he has complied with all the transfer orders. As the petitioner's wife is also employed, he had submitted Ext P4 representation before the second respondent seeking for exemption from rotational transfer. As there was no response to Ext P4, the petitioner submitted Ext P5 representation.
5. The petitioner relies on Ext P6 memorandum issued by the Government of India, granting exemption from routine exercise of transfer to Government employees, who have children with disability in conformity with the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act 2016. The petitioner also relies on Ext P7 circular, ensuring that both the husband and wife are to be posted at the same station.
6. The petitioner has averred that as per Ext P8 order, he was promoted from the post of Deputy General Manager to Joint General Manager. As there was no response to Exts P4 and P5 representations, the petitioner filed WP(C) 17712/2019 before this Court. When the writ petition came up for hearing, the respondents assured before this Court that the grievance of the petitioner would be considered. Accordingly, the writ petition was dismissed as withdrawn.
7. Thereafter, on 18.6.2020, the petitioner has been served with Ext P9 order, transferring him to Bangalore with immediate effect. The petitioner immediately submitted Ext P10 representation before the second respondent and, thereafter, filed WP(C) 12805/2020. This Court by Ext P11 judgment dated 1.7.2020 directed the second respondent to consider the representation submitted by the petitioner with compassion and sympathy that it deserves. Although the second respondent considered the representation, the petitioner's request for cancellation of the transfer has been rejected. Hence, the petitioner seeks to quash Ext P12 and direct the respondents to exempt the petitioner from rotational transfer.
8. Heard Smt. Sandhya Raju, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Smt. Asha Cherian, the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents.
9. The learned counsel for the petitioner reiterated the contentions in the writ petition. She argued that the respondents have transferred the petitioner ignoring the directives in Exts P6 and P7. Moreover, the petitioner's son is a special need child and it is necessary that the petitioner continues to work at Ernakulam to take care of the needs and necessities of his son, especially because his wife is also employed. Now, since the petitioner's son is attending online classes, it has become necessary that one of the spouses be at their residence. In the said circumstances, Ext P12 order passed by the third respondent is arbitrary and illegal and in violation to Exts P6 and P7.
10. The learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents, on instructions, submitted that petitioner is working as a Joint General Manager. He is occupying a Managerial post. He has been working in Ernakulam for the last four years. In June 2019, when the petitioner was promoted as Joint General Manager and was transferred, he made a similar representation. The Corporation compassionately ........