IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P. (C) No.20894 of 2017 Bijay Kumar Sahu …. Petitioner Mr. Debasish Ray, Advocate -Versus- Life Insurance Corporation of India, Central Office, Mumbai and another …. Opposite Parties Mr. A.K. Mohanty, Advocate for O.P. Nos. 1 & 2 CORAM: MR. JUSTICE R.K. PATTANAIK Order No. ORDER 18.05.2025 13. 1. Heard learned counsel for the respective parties. 2. Instant writ petition is filed by the petitioner assailing the transfer order at Annexure-3 and the impugned decision i.e. Annexure-8 vis-à-vis cancellation of his promotion to the cadre of Assistant Divisional Manager (ADM) on the grounds stated. 3. Mr. Ray, learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is a person of disability and refers to Annexure-1 and hence, in view of such disability, the authority concerned could not have transferred him to Bhadrak and furthermore when such transfer is not in consonance with the guidelines issued by the Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions, Department of P&T, Government of India. The submission is that the petitioner on account of the disability could not join at the place of posting and for that, representation was moved but instead of considering the same, the cancellation order as per Annexure-8 was followed. It is contended that the petitioner was entitled to promotion but since failed to comply the transfer, it led to the decision as per Annexure-8 by the opposite parties. Referring to the relevant guidelines at Annexure-7, it is submitted that the petitioner ought to have been given preference at the time of transfer and posting being a person of disability but it has not been considered in terms thereof and hence, not only the transfer order vide Annexure-3 is illegal but also the cancellation of promotion vide Annexure-8 which is, therefore, liable to be interfered with and set aside. 4. On the contrary, Mr. Mohanty, learned counsel for the opposite parties submits that it was not a rotational transfer but on promotion, hence, the petitioner having not availed the same, it was followed by Annexure-8 and therefore, he is not entitled any such relief sought for. It is further submitted that the representation i.e. Annexure-5 of the petitioner was considered by the authority concerned and it was rejected and duly communicated vide Annexure-A/1 to the counter. It is further submitted that the competent authority found it not possible to accede to the request of the petitioner seeking cancellation of transfer, hence, the representation dated 9th September, 2026 was rejected vide Annexure-5. That apart, referring to the Office Memorandum dated 10th May, 1990 of the Department of P&T, Government of India in Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions, it is contended by Mr. Mohanty, learned counsel that any such transfer shall be subject to administrative constraints and employees who are physically handicapped and belong to Group-A or Group- B shall have an all India transfer and therefore, any such posting nearby native places cannot be insisted upon and since in the case at hand, the petitioner is a senior rank official of the LIC in the cadre of Group- A, it was for him to join at the place of posting availing the promotion and since it was not acted upon, rightly, therefore, there was cancellation of promotion order vide Anneuxre-8. 5. In course of hearing, Mr. Ray, learned counsel for the petitioner cited an order dated 22nd April, 2024 in W.P. (C) No. 20894 of 2017 of this Court, wherein, the fact of disability has been taken judicial notice of with a direction therein to the LIC to take instructions on the plea of promotional benefit demanded from 2017. It is submitted further that the matter is pending disposal before this Court till today. On the other hand, Mr. Mohanty, learned counsel for the opposite parties cited an order dated 23rd August, 2018 in W.P. (C) No. 11693 of 2018, wherein, the petitioner’s challenge to the transfer in the year 2018 was not entertained and it was dismissed on the premise that there is no malafide or arbitrary exercise of power and all the more when, the transfer is an incident of service. 6. Gone through the guidelines issued by the Government of India at Annexure-7. A preference is given to employees under disability with a stipulation therein that the persons with disabilities may be exempted from rotational transfer policy/transfer and to allow them to continue in the same job, where they would have achieved the desired performance. It is stipulated further that the preference in the place of posting at the time of transfer/promotion may be given to the persons with disability subject to administrative constraints. As regards the Office Memorandum of the DoPT, it has been directed that any such Group-A or Group-B officials, who are physically handicapped, it may not always be possible or desirable to lay down that they are to be posted near the native places. As to the petitioner’s transfer in the year 2017, it is not a rotational one so to say. In fact, the petitioner was transferred to Bhadrak on a promotion and as earlier stated, it was not availed of. The disability as per Annexure-1 and the administrative constraints have been taken cognizance of by the competent authority with a decision at the end vide Annexure-A/1 to the counter affidavit. The Court is only to examine whether there is any illegality committed in not considering the grievance of the petitioner. The Court finds that the petitioner is a Group-A cadre official in the LIC and according to Mr. Mohanty, learned counsel for the opposite parties, he has been posted at Sambalpur ever since 2012 and since it was not a rotational transfer but on a promotion, taking into account the guidelines which stipulates a preference and in respect of Group-A officials, it is by the Office Memorandum of DoPT that transfer is not to be insisted upon at nearby native places which at times not feasible, hence, is of the view that there has been no any error or serious illegality committed by the authority concerned while rejecting the representation vide Annexure-A/1 and cancelling the promotion with a decision vide Annexure-8 and therefore, it is not to be interfered with on any such grounds stated. 7. Accordingly, it is ordered. 8. In the result, the writ petition stands dismissed. (R. K. Pattanaik) Judge kabita