HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD WRIT - A No. - 5871 of 2026 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 Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Navin Kumar, Ramesh Chandra Counsel for Respondent(s) : Krishna Mohan Asthana Ravindra Kumar Barkhiya .....Petitioner(s) Chairman And Managing Director .....Respondent(s) 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 2 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 3 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. 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. April 23, 2026 SB WRIA No. 5871 of 2026 4 (Saurabh Shyam Shamshery,J.) Digitally signed by :- SANDEEP BHATTACHARYA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad