Allahabad High Court
RAVINDRA KUMAR BARKHIYAversusCHAIRMAN AND MANAGING DIRECTOR
- Decided
Holding
The Court held that the petitioner’s transfer cannot be ordered as no suitable post of equal level is presently available at the Noida office, though the employer must accommodate him when such a vacancy arises.
Summary
The petitioner, a Scientific Officer/D at the Narora Atomic Power Station, suffers from chronic liver disease and sought a transfer from Bulandshahr to the QA Office in Noida to facilitate easier access to medical treatment. The employer rejected the request, stating that the Noida post is field‑oriented, lacks suitable infrastructure, and no vacant post of equal grade is available. The petitioner approached the Chief Commissioner for Persons with Disabilities, who recommended the transfer under the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016, and the High Court subsequently heard the writ petition. The Court examined whether the employer must provide a reasonable accommodation and transfer despite the lack of a vacant equal‑level post. It held that while the employer has a duty to accommodate a disabled employee, it cannot be compelled to create or assign a post that does not exist, and therefore the transfer could not be ordered at this stage. The writ petition was disposed of, with the Court directing the employer to inform the petitioner when an appropriate vacancy arises and to comply with the Chief Commissioner’s recommendations regarding facilities.
Issues considered
- Whether the employer is obligated under the RPwD Act, 2016 to transfer a disabled employee to a different location for medical convenience despite the absence of a vacant equal‑grade post.
- Whether the recommendation of the Chief Commissioner for Persons with Disabilities is binding on the employer.
- Whether the lack of suitable infrastructure and a sedentary post at the Noida office constitutes a valid ground to deny the transfer.
Legislation cited
Subjects
- disability
- reasonable accommodation
- transfer of employee
- Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act
- equal opportunity policy
- nuclear power station
- medical treatment
- writ petition
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
WRIT - A No. - 5871 of 2026
Ravindra Kumar Barkhiya
.....Petitioner(s)
Versus
Chairman And Managing Director
.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Navin Kumar, Ramesh Chandra
Counsel for Respondent(s) : Krishna Mohan Asthana
Court No. - 32
HON'BLE SAURABH SHYAM SHAMSHERY, J.
1. Heard Sri Rahul Bajaj, through video conferencing, Sri Tanishk Goyal,
Atul Sharma, learned counsels for the petitioners, and Sri K.M.Asthana,
learned counsel for the respondents.
2. Petitioner was appointed as Scientific Officer/D at IT&C, Narora
Atomic Power Station (NAPS) under NPCIL. Admittedly, it is a sensitive
organization.
3. Petitioner is suffering from serious chronic liver ailments, namely
Acute Hepatitis-NASH/NAFLD i.e. a case of post-polio residual paralysis
and is undergoing treatment at St. Stephens Hospital, Delhi, where he
normally visits thrice in a year.
4. Petitioner has submitted a representation for his transfer from
Bulandshahr to Q.A. Office at Noida mainly on a ground that it would be
more convenient for his treatment at St. Stephens Hospital, Delhi, as he
has to travel less.
5. There is nothing on record that petitioner had to rushed to the said
hospital in emergency in last one or two year.
6. Petitioner is working at Bulandshahr since 2018.
7. Petitioner has not disclosed that on his own request earlier, he was
transferred from office at Mumbai to office at Bulandshahr.
8. In the aforesaid circumstances, petitioner firstly approached the Court
of the Chief Commissioner For Persons With Disabilities (Divyangjan)
by making a complaint and after hearing, the Chief Commissioner made
certain recommendations vide an order dated 30.12.2024, which are
reproduced hereinafter:
“ 6.1 In view of the above, this Court recommends that
the request of the Complainant be considered in the light
WRIA No. 5871 of 2026
2
of the provisions of the RPwD Act, the rules and
instructions issued in pursuance thereof, and the
observation of this court as brought out in para 5 above.
The Respondent is further recommended to review and
revise their Equal Opportunity Policy to bring them in
line with Section 21 of the RPwD Act, 2016 read with
Rule 8 of the RPwD Rules, 2017. The Respondent may
mutatis mutandis use the template EoP issued by this
Court as mentioned in para 5.5 above.
6.2 The Respondent is advised to take early action and
forward their ATR to this Court within three months from
the date of this order.
6.3 With these observations and recommendations, this
case stands disposed of ”
9. In the aforesaid circumstances, petitioner has approached concerned
respondent for transfer and when no order was passed, he was constrained
to approach this Court by way of filing a Writ Petition No.17304 of 2025,
which was disposed of vide an order dated 16.12.2025, with an
observation that respondents shall make all endeavour to consider and
decide the representation keeping a sympathetic view strictly in
accordance with law, by means of a reasoned and speaking order after
giving proper opportunity of hearing to the parties concern.
10. The petitioner was firstly served with a response to the queries and
was granted a personal hearing on 09.02.2026 through Video
Conferencing and after taking note of submissions and points for
consideration, a decision was taken whereby request for transfer of
petitioner was rejected vide an order dated 17.02.2026, which is under
challenge in this writ petition.
11. According to impugned order, QA Office at Noida does not provide
structured support, facilities, and reasonable accommodation and finally
following decision was taken-:
“ It is concluded that the duties at QA Office,
Noida are predominantly field-oriented and
incompatible with the medical and physical condition
of Shri Barkhiya. No suitable alternative sedentary
position commensurate with his grade and expertise
is presently available at QA Office, Noida. The
existing posting at NAPS provides structured support,
facilities, and reasonable accommodation and hence,
the administrative exigencies and functional
WRIA No. 5871 of 2026
3
requirements do not justify the proposed transfer.
Accordingly, the request of Shri Ravindra
Kumar Barkhiya, SO/D, for transfer from NAPS to
QA Office, Noida, cannot be acceded to at this
stage.”
12. Learned counsels for the petitioner submitted that respondents are
under legal obligation to adjust the petitioner at their Noida Office and to
provide all necessary facilities, but respondents have rejected the request
for transfer that no vacancy is available to commensurate petitioner’s
qualification as well as absence of proper infrastructure, since it would be
against the purport of not only of Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act,
2016 (RPwD Act), as well as recommendations made by the Chief
Commissioner, Persons with Disabilities (Divyangjan).
13. In order to support his submissions, he has placed reliance on few
provisions of Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 (RPwD Act).
14. Per-contra learned counsel for respondent submits that there is no
equal post is available at office at Noida to accommodate petitioner and
that office at Bulandshahr has better infrastructure for employee such as
petitioner’s request for transfer was rejected despite considering it
sympathetically.
15. Court considered the case of petitioner in a sympathetic manner and
asked counsel appearing on behalf of petitioner to take instructions as to
whether petitioner still wants to transfer at QA Office at Noida, despite
there being limited infrastructure and he might suffer inconvenience.
16. Learned counsel for the petitioner has received instructions that even
in such circumstances, if petitioner is transferred to QA Office at Noida,
he will not claim facilities as a right, though respondents may be directed
to take all endeavour to provide facilities as per prevailing provisions.
17. Considering the above submissions, only question left is if the
petitioner is transferred to QA Office at Noida, on which post he will
work.
18. Petitioner has not come up with a specific case that post of Scientific
Officer/D is vacant at QA Office at Noida, though according to
instructions, petitioner is ready to do a job close to his qualification even
on lower position.
19. Learned counsel for the respondents on basis of instructions
submitted that presently there is no post available which may be equal to
experience of petitioner and expertise, whereas the post on which
petitioner is presently working is a post equal to his experience and
expertise.
WRIA No. 5871 of 2026
4
20. In the aforesaid circumstances, when there is a specific denial on
behalf of respondents and there is no document available before this
Court that no post equal to expertise of the petitioner is presently
available at QA Office at Noida, to accommodate the petitioner,
therefore, impugned order does not suffers from any illegality.
21. Court finds that it is always a duty of an employer to give all requisite
facilities to persons having disability being ‘Divyang’ so that they can
work with full potential ignoring their inconvenience, therefore,
petitioner’s case can still be considered for transfer treating a case of
extraordinary circumstances, however, Court finds that at this stage, it is
not possible to transfer the petitioner since no suitable post at office at
Noida is available and petitioner cannot be put in a position where he has
to work at a post of low level , which might adversely affect his
potentiality of work.
22. This writ petition is accordingly disposed of with an observation that
as soon as any of equal level post is available, he may be accommodated
with a condition that he would be ready to work on the said post without
any protest and in the given circumstances of lesser infrastructure and for
that respondents will be a under legal obligation that they have to
communicate the petitioner as soon as any equal post become vacant at
office at Noida and for that petitioner can review request for transfer after
a period of three months.
23. So far as petitioner’s treatment at St. Stephens Hospital, Delhi is
concerned, since mobility has already been provided, he can use it and all
admissible facilities shall be provided to the petitioner as well as
recommendations of Chief Commissioner shall also be taken note of.
24. Court extends its gratitude to Sri Rahul Bajaj, Advocate(Divyangjan)
and Sri Tanishk Goyal a new entrant to Bar at Allahabad for proper
assistance to the Court.
25. Writ Petition is accordingly disposed of.
(Saurabh Shyam Shamshery,J.)
April 23, 2026
SB
Digitally signed by :-
SANDEEP BHATTACHARYA
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…