The Rajasthan High Court, on September 10, 2025, allowed a petition challenging a CAT,( Central Administrative Tribunal) Jaipur order directing the petitioner, an engineer, to transfer to Karnataka during his daughter’s board exams. The Court stressed that transfer policies must consider family welfare and children’s education, noting that forced relocation in such circumstances would harm both family well-being and the petitioner’s performance.
The case arose when the petitioner challenged the order of the CAT Jaipur Bench, dated 08.08.2025, which had denied his request for further retention in Jaipur. The petitioner argued that his daughter was studying in Class XII and her board examinations are scheduled in March 2026, and therefore, making the request for retention in Rajasthan Circle until that period viable. He relied upon the transfer policy dated 07.05.08, particularly Clause 6.6, which envisages that an employee may seek retention at the present place of posting until the completion of the academic year if the child is in Class X or Class XII. The petitioner contended that the Tribunal failed to appreciate this provision and instead rejected his application solely on the ground that he had been posted in Jaipur for 23 years.The respondents reiterated that granting such requests would set a precedent for other engineers with wider repercussions. As for the matter of Clause 6.6, the respondents contended that it was still under consideration and not formally introduced.
The Division Bench of Justices Sanjeev Prakash Sharma and Sanjeet Purohit observed that the authorities had overlooked the humanitarian and welfare aspects of the petitioner’s request, stressing that transfer policies must consider the employee’s family, especially children’s education. The Court highlighted that while campaigns like Beti Bachao Beti Padhao are promoted, departments must implement it towards girl students preparing for crucial board exams. A compassionate approach was required, as forcing relocation could harm both family welfare and the employee’s performance. Hence the Court held the Tribunal’s order dated 08.08.25 and quashed it further reliving the order dated 31.07.25. It directed the respondents to retain the petitioner at Jaipur until March 2026, after which he may join his transferred post in Karnataka. Accordingly. the writ petition was allowed and all pending applications were disposed of.
For the Petitioner – Adv. Mr. Shobhit Vyas
For the Respondents – Adv. Mr. Khem ChandSharma, Adv. Mr. Neeraj Batra w/ Adv. Ravindra Pal Singh
