Rajasthan High Court Sets Aside Nurse's Transfer Due to Exceptional Personal Hardships

In a recent judgment, the Rajasthan High Court annulled the transfer of a nurse who was the sole caregiver for her elderly mother suffering from Alzheimer's disease. The court emphasized the necessity for the state to consider exceptional personal hardships faced by employees when making transfer decisions.

Background of the Case

The petitioner, a nurse by profession, was ordered to be transferred approximately 300 kilometers from her current place of employment. She challenged this transfer on the grounds that she was the primary and sole caregiver for her widowed mother, a senior citizen diagnosed with Alzheimer's disease. The petitioner argued that relocating would not only cause significant logistical challenges but also impede her ability to provide timely medical care to her ailing mother.

Court's Observations

Justice Arun Monga, presiding over the case, observed that the respondents had overlooked the petitioner's unique circumstances. The court noted that the transfer would impose undue hardship, both in terms of logistical difficulties and the adverse impact on the care of the petitioner's dependent mother. The judgment highlighted a lack of empathy and compassion in the respondents' decision-making process, stating, "I am of the view given the mitigating circumstances of the petitioner, which have been conveniently given a go-bye in the reply filed by the respondents, is reflective of not only mechanical manner in which the case of the petitioner has been dealt with but also smacks of complete lack of compassion."

Legal Reasoning

While acknowledging that courts typically refrain from interfering in matters of administrative transfers and postings, Justice Monga clarified that intervention is warranted in situations involving extreme hardship or blatant legal violations. The court underscored the expectation that the state, as a model employer, should exhibit empathy and consider the exceptional hardships of its employees. Ignoring such circumstances reflects a lack of compassion, which is contrary to the principles of moral governance.

Conclusion

Consequently, the High Court set aside the transfer order, allowing the petitioner to continue her duties at her current location. This judgment serves as a significant reminder to employers, particularly state authorities, to account for the personal hardships of employees in their administrative decisions, ensuring that policies are implemented with humanity and understanding.