An Analysis of Transfer on Compassionate Grounds in Indian Public Service Law
Introduction
The concept of 'transfer on compassionate grounds' within the Indian public service framework represents a critical intersection of administrative exigency and humanitarian considerations. It pertains to the relocation of an existing government employee from one post or station to another, predicated on compelling personal circumstances that warrant sympathetic consideration from the employer. This mechanism is distinct from 'compassionate appointment', which involves offering new employment to a dependent of a government servant who dies in harness or is medically incapacitated. While both stem from a compassionate ethos, their objectives, eligibility criteria, and legal implications differ significantly. This article endeavors to provide a comprehensive analysis of the legal principles governing transfers on compassionate grounds in India, drawing upon judicial pronouncements and relevant policy considerations. It will examine the nature of this provision, the grounds upon which such transfers are sought and granted, the consequential impact on service conditions like seniority and promotion, and the scope of judicial review in such matters, primarily through the lens of the provided reference materials.
Conceptual Framework: Compassionate Grounds in Public Employment
The provision for considering 'compassionate grounds' in public employment, whether for transfers or appointments, is an exception to the general rules of recruitment, posting, and transfer, which are typically governed by merit, seniority, and administrative requirements. The underlying philosophy is rooted in the State's role as a model employer, expected to act with fairness and empathy towards its employees facing genuine hardship. While compassionate appointments are designed to provide immediate succor to a family facing penury due to the sudden loss of its breadwinner (Umesh Kumar Nagpal v. State Of Haryana And Others, 1994 SCC 4 138; Director Of Education (Secondary) And Another v. Pushpendra Kumar And Others, 1998 SCC 5 192), transfers on compassionate grounds aim to alleviate distress for an existing employee, enabling them to continue in service under more tenable personal circumstances.
The Supreme Court in Umesh Kumar Nagpal emphasized that compassionate considerations should not be a source of "obfuscation" and must be guided by clear rules and the objective of mitigating sudden crisis. This principle, though articulated in the context of appointments, underscores the exceptional nature of any compassionate measure in public service, requiring a balance against the principles of equality enshrined in Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.
Transfer on Compassionate Grounds: Legal Principles and Judicial Scrutiny
Transfers are generally considered an incidence of service, and an employee has no vested right to be posted at a particular place (Union Of India And Others v. S.L Abbas, 1993 SCC 4 357). However, requests for transfer on compassionate grounds are treated as a special category, subject to specific guidelines and employer discretion.
Nature of the Entitlement to Transfer on Compassionate Grounds
A transfer on compassionate grounds is not an absolute right of an employee but a concession that may be granted by the employer based on the genuineness of the grounds and administrative feasibility. The courts have consistently held that the employer's discretion, while broad, must be exercised reasonably, fairly, and in accordance with established guidelines (Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan v. Damodar Prasad Pandey And Others, 2004 SCC 12 299). The decision in Dental Council Of India (S) v. Anhad Raj Singh And Anr. (S) (Supreme Court Of India, 2017), though concerning student migration, reiterated that such transfers can only be in exceptional situations and are not a matter of right, a principle analogously applicable to employee transfers.
Grounds for Compassionate Transfer
Compassionate grounds typically include severe illness of the employee or their dependent family members, physical disability, the need to care for aged or ailing parents, or situations involving spouse postings. The case of Major Rahul Shukla. v. Union Of India & Ors. (Delhi High Court, 1995), concerning a request for premature retirement on "extreme compassionate grounds" to look after an aged mother, illustrates the types of personal hardships that may be considered. The Central Information Commission's decision in Gaurav Mittal v. Central Public Information Officer, State Bank Of India (2018 SCC ONLINE CIC 13434), seeking the definition of "serious disease" under bank rules for compassionate transfers, highlights the importance of clear and well-defined criteria in policies governing such transfers. The Supreme Court's observations in SK Nausad Rehaman & Ors. Vs. Union of India & Ors. (decided on 10.03.2022), cited in SUMIT AND OTHER v. REVENUE (Central Administrative Tribunal, 2025), emphasized that state policies must consider the importance of protecting family life and that interference with such rights must be proportional.
Impact on Seniority
A significant consequence of a transfer on compassionate grounds is its effect on the employee's seniority in the new unit or cadre. The general rule, consistently upheld by courts, is that an employee transferred at their own request on compassionate grounds is placed at the bottom of the seniority list in the new unit, below the juniormost permanent or temporary employee in that grade (Gursharan Singh v. Union Of India And Others, 1995 SCC L&S 226; Union Of India And Others v. Deo Narain And Others, 2008 SCC 10 84; Scientific Advisor To Raksha Mantri And Another v. V.M Joseph, 1998 SCC 5 305). This principle is also affirmed in P.Sai Krishnan v. Union of India (Central Administrative Tribunal, 2016) and KRISHNA PANDU DURGEKAR v. WESTERN NAVAL COMMAND (Central Administrative Tribunal, 2024). The rationale is that such a transfer is for the employee's personal convenience and should not adversely affect the existing seniority and promotional prospects of employees already serving in the recipient unit. Condition (ii) of the circular discussed in Deo Narain explicitly stated, "The transferee will not be entitled to count the service rendered by him in the former collectorate for the purpose of seniority in the new charge...he will be treated as a new entrant in the collectorate to which he is transferred."
Counting of Past Service for Other Benefits (Promotion Eligibility, Pension)
While seniority in the new unit is typically lost, the question arises whether past service rendered in the previous unit is wiped out for all purposes. The Supreme Court in Union Of India And Others v. C.N Ponnappan (1996 SCC 1 524) laid down a crucial distinction. It held that although an employee transferred on compassionate grounds loses seniority, the service rendered in the earlier unit from where they were transferred can be counted as experience for the purpose of eligibility for promotion in the new unit. The Court reasoned that such service is regular service and is not wiped out for purposes like leave and retiral benefits. This principle was reiterated by the Central Administrative Tribunal in P.Sai Krishnan v. Union of India (2016), stating, "Seniority is one thing and the past service for eligibility for promotion is quite another."
Similarly, Gursharan Singh v. Union Of India And Others (1994) clarified that while seniority is reckoned from the date of joining the new unit, civilian employees transferred on compassionate grounds will not be treated as fresh entrants for the purpose of eligibility for pension, leave, and quasi-permanency. However, the application of this principle for promotion can sometimes depend on specific recruitment rules. In Scientific Advisor To Raksha Mantri And Another v. V.M Joseph (1998), the DPC reckoned the qualifying service for promotion from the date the employee joined the new post on transfer, which might have been due to specific rules governing that promotion. The broader principle from Ponnappan remains influential.
Judicial Review of Transfer Orders on Compassionate Grounds
The scope of judicial review in matters of transfer, including those on compassionate grounds, is limited. Courts and tribunals generally refrain from interfering with transfer orders unless they are shown to be vitiated by mala fides, made in violation of statutory provisions or operative guidelines, or are so arbitrary as to shock the conscience (Union Of India And Others v. S.L Abbas, 1993 SCC 4 357; Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan v. Damodar Prasad Pandey And Others, 2004 SCC 12 299). The tribunal in S.L Abbas noted that it "clearly exceeded its jurisdiction in interfering with the order of transfer." The burden of proving mala fides is heavy on the person alleging it. The courts do not act as appellate authorities over administrative decisions regarding postings and transfers.
Policy Considerations and Evolving Jurisprudence
The effective and fair administration of compassionate transfers hinges on clear, transparent, and consistently applied policies. The challenge in SUMIT AND OTHER v. REVENUE (2025) against a "loan basis" transfer policy for Group 'C' employees, alleging discrimination vis-à-vis Group 'A' employees for compassionate/spouse ground transfers, underscores the need for equitable policies that withstand scrutiny under Article 14 of the Constitution. The Supreme Court's emphasis in SK Nausad Rehaman & Ors. (cited therein) on proportionality and the importance of family life signals an evolving jurisprudence that requires the State to give due consideration to these aspects when formulating transfer policies.
The policy circulars themselves, as seen in P. Jayakumar v. Union Of India (Madras High Court, 2014), play a vital role in determining the conditions of such transfers, particularly concerning seniority. The applicability of schemes and their amendments, a point often litigated in compassionate appointment cases (e.g., Canara Bank And Another v. M. Mahesh Kumar, 2015 SCC 7 412; State Bank Of India And Another v. Raj Kumar, 2010 SCC 11 661), also has analogous relevance, emphasizing that transfers should be processed according to the rules/guidelines in force.
Distinguishing Transfer from Appointment on Compassionate Grounds
It is crucial to reiterate the distinction between transfer on compassionate grounds and appointment on compassionate grounds.
- Transfer on Compassionate Grounds: Involves an existing employee seeking a change of posting due to personal hardship. The primary aim is to enable the employee to continue their service effectively by mitigating adverse personal circumstances. Consequences primarily relate to seniority and adjustment in a new environment.
- Appointment on Compassionate Grounds: Involves offering new employment to a dependent of a deceased or medically invalidated employee. The objective is to provide immediate financial relief to the bereaved family facing penury (Umesh Kumar Nagpal v. State Of Haryana, 1994; Bhawani Prasad Sonkar v. Union Of India And Others, 2011 SCC 10 84). Such appointments are typically restricted to lower category posts (Class III and IV) (Director Of Education v. Pushpendra Kumar, 1998; Shiv Kumar Dubey v. State Of U.P And Ors., Allahabad High Court, 2014) and are contingent upon the financial condition of the family. The scheme governing such appointments is paramount (Canara Bank v. M. Mahesh Kumar, 2015; State Bank Of India v. Raj Kumar, 2010).
Conclusion
Transfers on compassionate grounds serve as an important mechanism within Indian public service law to address genuine hardships faced by employees. While not an absolute right, the consideration of such requests reflects a humane approach by the State. The judiciary has played a significant role in defining the contours of this provision, particularly concerning its impact on seniority and the counting of past service for other benefits like promotion eligibility. The consistent position is that while an employee may lose seniority in the new unit, their past service is generally not obliterated for purposes like experience and pension, subject to specific rules. Judicial review remains limited, intervening primarily in cases of mala fides or clear violation of established norms. The evolving jurisprudence, particularly concerning policy fairness and the consideration of family life, suggests a continuing effort to balance administrative needs with the welfare of public servants. Clear, equitable, and consistently applied policies are paramount to ensure that the provision for compassionate transfers achieves its intended purpose without undermining the principles of fairness and administrative efficiency.