Rights Of Persons With Disabilities Act  | Equal Opportunity Policy Of Employer Is Mandatory; Routine Transfer Policy Must Yield To Special Provisions For Caregivers: Rajasthan High Court

"The Special Policy framed by the respondent-Bank is, therefore, not an act of charity but a statutory obligation. It has a binding force. The respondent-Bank cannot be allowed to frame a policy for public display and then act contrary to it." Rajasthan High Court, in a significant ruling dated October 5, 2026, held that a bank’s internal Equal Opportunity Policy, formulated in compliance with the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (RPwD) Act, 2016, constitutes a mandatory statutory obligation that takes precedence over general administrative transfer policies.

A bench of Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand observed that when an employer, acting as a State under Article 12 of the Constitution, formulates special protections for employees who are caregivers to disabled dependents, those protections must be strictly honored to avoid arbitrary and inhumane administrative actions.

The petitioner, a Scale-II Manager at UCO Bank, challenged an order transferring him from Rajasthan to Gujarat. The petitioner sought the cancellation of this transfer on the grounds that he is the sole caregiver for his younger brother, who suffers from Thalassemia with a 75% permanent disability. The petitioner argued that the Bank’s Equal Opportunity Policy for 2024-2027 explicitly exempts caregivers of disabled dependents from routine rotational transfers, a fact he asserted was ignored by the Bank when it rejected his representation against the transfer.

The primary question before the court was whether a general transfer policy could override the specific protections afforded to caregivers under the Bank’s Equal Opportunity Policy formulated pursuant to Section 21 of the RPwD Act, 2016. The court was also called upon to determine if the non-consideration of these medical and dependency factors rendered the impugned transfer order arbitrary and violative of Articles 14, 16, and 21 of the Constitution.

Binding Nature of Equal Opportunity Policy

The Court emphasized that the Bank’s Special Policy is not a matter of discretion or charity but a reflection of the statutory mandate under Section 21 of the RPwD Act, 2016. By failing to refer to the medical certificate of the petitioner’s brother or the provisions of Clause 7(V) and 7(VI) of the Special Policy, the Bank’s rejection order was deemed a "classic case of non-application of mind."

"The respondent-Bank, being a State within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution, is expected to act as a model employer."

Reasonable Accommodation as a Legal Necessity

The bench clarified that the principle of "reasonable accommodation" is central to the employment of caregivers under the Act of 2016. While recognizing that transfer is an incidence of service, the court held that this power is not absolute and must yield to the protective shield provided by special policies. The term "administrative constraints" cannot be used as an omnibus excuse to nullify the rights of caregivers.

"The expression ‘administrative constraints’ cannot be construed as an omnibus or mechanical exception so as to render the protective object of the provisions nugatory."

Violations of Article 21

The Court expressed deep concern over the human cost of the transfer, noting that forcing a caregiver to relocate 1000 KMs away from a dependent suffering from a life-threatening disorder like Thalassemia effectively denies the dependent's right to health and life. Such actions were branded as inhumane and violative of the constitutional guarantees enshrined in Article 21, which includes the right to live with dignity for both the caregiver and the disabled individual.

Balancing Administrative Exigencies

While the court quashed the impugned transfer order, it balanced the petitioner's rights with the Bank's administrative needs. The court noted that the petitioner could not claim permanent immunity from transfer. It directed the Bank to allow the petitioner to remain at his current station until a fresh, reasoned, and speaking order is passed that specifically considers the requirements of Clause 7(V) and 7(VI) of the Special Policy.

"The petitioner cannot claim immunity from transfer for all times to come. Transfer is an administrative exigency. The only protection available to the petitioner is that his case must be considered in the light of the Special Policy."

The Court finally ordered the Bank to consider transferring the petitioner to a location that would accommodate his caregiving responsibilities while ensuring the vacancy needs of the institution are met. The impugned transfer order was quashed, and the respondents were directed to strictly adhere to the spirit of the Equal Opportunity Policy in all future postings of the petitioner.

Date of Decision: 05 October 2026