Ajith C.S vs The Chairman And Managing Director
2026 Latest Caselaw 323 Ker

Kerala High Court

Ajith C.S vs The Chairman And Managing Director on 14 January, 2026

W.A.No.21 of 2026                   1


                                                                2026:KER:2404

                    IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                                        PRESENT

             THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE SUSHRUT ARVIND DHARMADHIKARI

                                           &

                 THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P. V. BALAKRISHNAN

          WEDNESDAY, THE 14TH DAY OF JANUARY 2026 / 24TH POUSHA, 1947

                               WA NO. 21 OF 2026

          AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 16.12.2025 IN WP(C) NO.47130 OF 2025 OF

HIGH COURT OF KERALA


APPELLANT:

               AJITH C.S.,AGED 53 YEARS
               S/O LATE C.K SUGATHAN, CHIEF MANAGER (SECURITY), IREL
               (INDIA) LIMITED, DEPARTMENT OF ATOMIC ENERGY, CHAVARA,
               KOLLAM, RESIDING AT CHAKKAMALLIL HOUSE, MANGAD P.O, KOLLAM,
               PIN - 691015


               BY ADVS.
               SRI.ANAND B. MENON



RESPONDENTS:

      1        THE CHAIRMAN AND MANAGING DIRECTOR,IREL (INDIA) LIMITED,
               1207, PRABHADEVI,MUMBAI, MAHARASHTRA, PIN - 400028

      2        CHIEF GENERAL MANAGER, (HRM),IREL (INDIA) LIMITED, HEAD
               OFFICE,1207, PRABHADEVI, MUMBAI, MAHARASHTRA, PIN - 400002

      3        GENERAL MANAGER AND HEAD
               IREL (INDIA) LIMITED, CHAVARA, KOLLAM, PIN - 691583

      4        DEPUTY GENERAL MANAGER, HRM
               IREL (INDIA) LIMITED, CHAVARA, KOLLAM, PIN - 691583
 W.A.No.21 of 2026               2


                                                        2026:KER:2404

             BY ADVS.

             SHRI.JAI MOHAN R1 TO R4


      THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 08.01.2026, THE
COURT ON 14.01.2026 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 W.A.No.21 of 2026               3


                                                           2026:KER:2404

                           W.A.No.21 of 2026
                                Judgment


   Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari, J.

Heard on the question of admission.

2. The present intra court appeal under Section 5 of the High

Court Act, 1958 assails the judgment dated 16.12.2025 passed in WP(c)

No.47130 of 2025 whereby the Writ Petition filed by the appellant ag-

grieved by Ext.P4 order transferring him, has been dismissed.

FACTS

3. The brief facts of the case are that the appellant who is work-

ing as Chief Manager (Security) in IREL (India) Ltd., Chavara has been

transferred to Manavalakkurichi Unit of the Company vide Ext.P4 or-

der dated 10.09.2025. The appellant had challenged the transfer or-

der earlier in WPC No.44067 of 2025. Vide judgment dated 25.11.2025,

the Writ Petition was disposed of directing the first respondent to

consider Ext.P13 representation submitted by the appellant and take

2026:KER:2404

appropriate decision showing as much sympathy and compassion

within a period of two weeks. Pursuant to the judgment passed by

this Court in W.P.(C) No.44067 of 2025, the respondents have issued

Ext.P9 dated 04.12.2025 wherein the respondents have held that the

appellant is holding the senior post of Chief Manager (Security)

which is a highly sensitive position from the security point of view of

the unit which is dealing with atomic minerals. The appellant has

again approached this Court after rejection of the representation on

the ground that his wife aged about 47 years is suffering from 40%

disability as is evident from Ext.P1 certificate issued by the Kerala

Health Service Department for persons with disability. In such a sit-

uation, taking into consideration the provisions of the Rights of Per-

sons with Disabilities Act, 2016 (for short 'The Act of 2016'), the trans-

fer of the appellant deserves to be exempted from the routine exer-

cise of transfer/rotational transfer subject to the administrative con-

straints.

2026:KER:2404

CONTENTION OF APPELLANT

4. The learned counsel for the appellant contended that the

learned Single Judge erred in dismissing the Writ Petition without

taking into consideration the judgment of the Apex Court in the case

of Balan.C. v Union of India (2024 1 KHC 64) wherein, in similar facts

and circumstances, the Apex Court has considered the transfer order

to be illegal, holding that if a person with disability is affected by such

transfer, and in no way the best interest of the child can be protected

consequent upon implementing such transfer order, is illegal. The

learned counsel further contended that there is no one to look after

the aged members of the family.

4.1 The learned counsel for the appellant further brought to the

notice of this Court the Circulars issued by the Ministry of Personnel,

Public Grievances & Pensions Department (DoPT), Government of In-

dia dated 08.10.2018 (Ext.P2) regarding exemption from the routine

exercise of transfer in respect of government employees who are

2026:KER:2404

care-givers of dependent daughter/son/parents/spouse/

brother/sister with specified disability. Admittedly, the spouse of the

appellant is a person with benchmark disability as defined under Sec-

tion 2(r) of the Act of 2016 which is evident from Ext.P1, the medical

certificate which shows that the disability is 40%. Therefore, the pro-

visions of the Act of 2016 would be applicable. The learned Single

Judge failed to consider these two aspects and also did not adopt a

liberal approach looking into the conditions of the family members.

Therefore, the judgment passed by the learned Single Judge deserves

to be set aside. In view of the aforesaid, a sympathetic view deserves

to be adopted and thus the Writ Appeal deserves to be allowed.

CONTENTION OF RESPONDENTS

5. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondents vehe-

mently opposed the prayer and submitted that the learned counsel

for the appellant is unable to point out violation of any statutory pro-

2026:KER:2404

visions or any other law governing the issue of transfer. The appel-

lant is continuing to discharge his duties in Chavara Unit in Kerala

for the last 13 years. The learned counsel for the respondents further

submitted that the employees of the company are liable to be trans-

ferred to any of the company's units/Offices/Establishments as per

the terms and conditions of their service rules. Therefore, no inter-

ference is called for, and the Writ Appeal deserves to be dismissed.

6. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and perused the

records.

7. It is the settled legal position that the transfer is an incidence

of service and no employee can claim posting at a particular place.

The order impugned can only be interfered with if there is any statu-

tory violation of the rules or the proved malafides.

7.1 Admittedly, the transfer of the appellant has been affected on

account of administrative exigencies. This Court cannot sit in appeal

over the assessment made by the competent authority with regard to

2026:KER:2404

the exigency of service and public interest. Moreover, it is well set-

tled law that transfer is an incidence of service. Which employee

should be posted where, is a matter for the appropriate authority to

decide.

8. The Supreme Court in the case of Namrata Verma v State of

U.P. and others (2021) SCC Online SC 337 has held that it is not for the

employee to insist to transfer him/her and/or not to transfer

him/her at a particular place. It is for the employer to transfer an

employee considering the requirement. Until and unless the transfer

is vitiated by mala fide or is made in violation of any statutory provi-

sions, the Court cannot interfere with the order of transfer. The Su-

preme Court while dealing with the scope of judicial review in the

matter of transfer, held that transfer is an incidence of service and

normally should not be interfered with by the Court. If any adminis-

trative guidelines regarding transfer of an employee are violated, at

best the same confers the right on the employee to approach the

higher authorities for redressal of his grievance.

2026:KER:2404

[See: Union of India and Others v. S.L. Abbas, (1993) 4 SCC

357, State Bank of India v. Anjan Sanyal and others, (2001) 5 SCC

508, Public Services Tribunal Bar Association v. State of U.P. and

another, (2003) 4 SCC 104, State of U.P. and Others v. Gobardhan

Lal, (2004) 1 SCC 402, R.S. Chaudhary and Others v. State of M.P.

and Others, ILR (2007) MP 1329, Government of Andhra Pradesh

v. G. Venkata 4 WP. No. 4738/2017 (Braj Kishore Paliwal Vs. State

of M.P. and others) Ratnam, (2008) 9 SCC 345 and State of Har-

yana and Others v. Kashmir Singh and Another, (2010) 13 SCC

306].

8.1 Transfer order can be interfered with if it violates any statutory

provision (not guidelines), changes in service condition of an em-

ployee to his/her detriment, proved to be mala fide or is passed by an

incompetent authority. Personal inconvenience cannot be a ground

for interference. No such ingredient is available in the present case.

2026:KER:2404

CONCLUSION

9. In view of the aforesaid, we do not find any illegality in the

impugned judgment passed by the learned Single Judge. The Writ

Appeal being devoid of merit and substance and is hereby dismissed.

All interlocutory applications as regards interim matters stand

closed.

Sd/- SUSHRUT ARVIND DHARMADHIKARI JUDGE

Sd/- P.V.BALAKRISHNAN JUDGE css/