Writ Jurisdiction Not Appropriate For Adjudicating Complex Title Disputes; Mutation Entries Do Not Confer Ownership: Madhya Pradesh High Court Joint Account Holder Not Liable Under Section 138 NI Act If Not A Signatory To Dishonoured Cheque: Allahabad High Court Private Individuals Accepting Money Can Be Prosecuted Under MPID Act; Nomenclature As 'Loan' Irrelevant: Supreme Court Nomenclature Of Transaction As 'Loan' Irrelevant; If Ingredients Met, It Is A 'Deposit' Under MPID Act: Supreme Court Pleadings Must State Material Facts, Not Evidence; Deficiency In Pleading Cannot Be Raised For First Time In Appeal: Supreme Court Denial Of Remission Cannot Rest Solely On Heinousness Of Crime; Justice Doesn't Permit Permanent Incarceration In Shadow Of Worst Act: Supreme Court Second Application For Rejection Of Plaint Barred By Res Judicata If Earlier Order Attained Finality: Supreme Court Section 6(5) Hindu Succession Act Is A Saving Clause, Not A Jurisdictional Bar To Partition Suits: Supreme Court Sale Of Natural Gas Via Common Carrier Pipelines Is An Inter-State Sale; UP Has No Jurisdiction To Levy VAT: Supreme Court Mediclaim Reimbursement Not Deductible From Motor Accident Compensation; Tortfeasor Can’t Benefit From Claimant’s Prudence: Supreme Court Rules Of Procedure Are Handmaid Of Justice, Not Mistress; Striking Off Defence Under Order XV Rule 5 CPC Is Not Mechanical: Supreme Court Power To Strike Off Tenant's Defense Under Order XV Rule 5 CPC Is Discretionary, Not To Be Exercised Mechanically: Supreme Court Areas Urbanised Before 1959 Don't Require Separate Notification To Fall Under Delhi Rent Control Act: Delhi High Court Police Cannot Freeze Bank Accounts To Perform Compensatory Justice; Direct Nexus With Offence Essential: Bombay High Court FSL Probe Before Electronic Evidence Meets Section 65B Admissibility Standards: Gujarat High Court Court Shouldn't Adjudicate Rights At Stage Of Granting Leave Under Section 92 CPC, Only Prima Facie Case Required: Allahabad High Court Right To Seek Bail Based On Non-Furnishing Of 'Grounds Of Arrest' Applies Only Prospectively From November 6, 2025: Madras High Court Prior Exposure To Accused Before TIP Renders Identification Meaningless: Delhi High Court Acquits Four In Uphaar Cinema Murder Case No Particular Format Prescribed For 'Proposed Resolution' In No-Confidence Motion; Intention Of Members To Be Gathered From Document As A Whole: Orissa High Court Trial Court Cannot Grant Temporary Injunction Without Adverting To Allegations Of Fraud And Collusion: Calcutta High Court "Ganja" Definition Under NDPS Act Excludes Roots & Stems: Karnataka High Court Grants Bail As Seized Weight Included Whole Plants Right To Speedy Trial Under Article 21 Doesn't Displace Section 37 NDPS Mandate In Commercial Quantity Cases: Orissa High Court

Central Administrative Tribunal Upholds Single Mother’s Claim for Transfer Exemption”

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a significant ruling, the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) delivered a landmark judgment, upholding the claim of a single mother seeking exemption from transfer. The case, OA No.1445/2023, was presided over by Hon’ble Dr. Chhabilendra Roul, Member (A), and the decision was pronounced on 7th July 2023.

The applicant, Kavita Dua, an esteemed TGT (Math) working at Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan (KVS), was transferred from KV Rajokri, AFS, New Delhi to KV Koni, Kerala, by an order dated 13.09.2022. Subsequently, her representation for the cancellation of the transfer was turned down in an order dated 23.03.2023.

In an unprecedented move, the Tribunal, while examining the case, took cognizance of the applicant’s plea that she is a single mother facing various personal difficulties. The Tribunal observed that the order dated 23.03.2023 lacked reasoning, failing to address the applicant’s grievance properly. Furthermore, it was brought to light that other employees belonging to specific categories, under the KVS Transfer Policy Guidelines 2021, were granted exemption from transfer, raising concerns of discrimination.

Counsel for the applicant, Advocate Karanjot Singh Mainee, argued that the applicant’s status as a single mother was not given due consideration, violating the principle of equality under Article 14 of the Constitution of India. On the other hand, respondents, represented by Advocate Mr. S. Rajappa, contended that the transfer was based on the rationalization/redistribution policy, denying any bias or malafide intentions.

The CAT, taking note of precedents, clarified that while personal hardships are valid for consideration, they are not grounds for the courts or tribunals to decide transfer matters. Instead, the administrative authorities are tasked with making the final decisions, taking into account genuine hardships to ensure good and efficient administration.

In a significant development, the Tribunal ordered the respondents to provide a fresh opportunity for the applicant to be heard. The applicant was directed to provide documentary evidence substantiating her single mother status, as well as the frequency of her family court appearances. The respondents were mandated to consider her representation within 15 days of submission.

The ruling sets a precedent for single mothers in the Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan and other similar institutions, recognizing their unique challenges and seeking to address them in a just and equitable manner.

“The present applicant deserves to be considered for exemption from transfer treating her de facto a single mother based on the principle of equality as enumerated under Article 14 of the Constitution of India.”

This verdict emphasizes the importance of considering personal difficulties and ensuring fair treatment for employees with distinct circumstances. The decision showcases the judiciary’s commitment to uphold constitutional rights and promote fairness in administrative decisions.

Date of Decision: 07July 2023

Kavita Dua vs The Commissioner

[gview file="https://lawyer-e-news.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/07/Kavita_Dua_vs_Kvs_on_7_July_2023_CAT.pdf"]

Latest Legal News