1. The petitioner is aggrieved by Ext.P4 order, by which the petitioner, who is working as Chief Manager, Security of the IREL (India) Limited Chavara, has been transferred to Manavalakurichi Unit of the Company.

2. The petitioner challenged the transfer earlier filing W.P.(C) No.44067/2025. This Court as per judgment dated 25.11.2025 disposed of the writ petition directing the 1st respondent to consider Ext.P13 representation therein submitted by the petitioner and take appropriate decision showing as much sympathy and compassion, within a period of two weeks.

3. Pursuant to Ext.P8 judgment, the respondents have passed Ext.P9 order dated 04.12.2025. In Ext.P9 order, the respondents have held that the petitioner is holding the senior post of Chief Manager (Security), which is a highly sensitive position from the security point of view of the Unit which is dealing with atomic minerals. Alternate arrangements to man the position of Security Officer at the Chavara Unit are already in place. Since Security Officer at Manavalakurichy has resigned, it is important for the petitioner to take over the charge of Security at Manavalakurichy at the earliest. Though the respondents expressed sympathy towards the petitioner, they rejected the representation submitted by the petitioner. It is aggrieved by Ext.P9 that the petitioner is before this Court.

4. The petitioner urge that his 47 year old wife is suffering from 40% disability, as is evident from Ext.P1 Certificate issued by the Kerala Health Service Department for Persons with Disability. The petitioner would urge that Ext.P2 Office Memorandum dated 08.10.2018 issued by the Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions, Government of India mandates that a Government employee who is a care-giver of dependent daughter / son / parents / spouse / brother / sister with specified disability, as certified by the certifying authority as a Person with Benchmark Disability as defined under Section 2(r) of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 may be exempted from the routine exercise of transfer / rotational transfer subject to the administrative constraints.

5. The petitioner also relied on a subsequent Office Memorandum dated 02.02.2024 issued by the Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions, Government of India, wherein also it has been stated that a Government employee who is a care-giver of a dependent with specified disability should be exempted from the routine exercise of transfer / rotational transfer subject to administrative constraints. Exts.P2 and P3 Office Memorandums are issued by the Government of India and IREL (India) Limited being a Government of India undertaking, is bound to give the benefit of Exts.P2 and P3 Office Memorandums to the petitioner.

6. Counsel for the petitioner submitted that his wife is suffering from 40% disability and it is highly necessary that the family is stationed at Chavara for the continued treatment of the wife. The counsel also relied on the judgment of this Court in Balan C. v. Union of India [2021 (1) KLT 180], wherein it has been held that if a Person with Disability is affected by transfer and if in no way the best interest of the person can be protected consequent upon implementing such transfer order, the transfer order will be considered as illegal.

7. The respondents resisted the writ petition. The respondents submitted that the petitioner has been in Chavara Station for more than 13 years. The employees of the Company are liable to be transferred to any of the Company’s Units / Offices / Establishments as per the terms and conditions of their service. The petitioner is a senior Chief Manager-in-Charge of the Security. It is a highly sensitive position from the security point of view, as the Unit is dealing with atomic minerals.

8. The Security Officer at Manavalakurichy Unit has already resigned. Therefore, it is all the more necessary that the petitioner takes charge of the Security at Manavalakurichy. The respondents further pointed out that as regards health issues faced by the petitioner, his wife and other family members, medical facilities as in Chavara Unit are also available in the Manavalakurichy Unit and the petitioner and his family members can continue to avail the same under the Company’s Medical Scheme.

9. The respondents further submitted that the role of the Security Officer, apart from being sensitive from the security point of view, involves close interaction with the members of local public of the mining areas and its neighbourhood, local political leadership etc. Hence, administrative transfers of the Security Officers are resorted to in the larger interests of the organization to pre-empt any likelihood of the incumbent establishing any unholy nexus with vested interest.

10. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel representing the respondents.

11. The petitioner is working as Chief Manager (Security). The petitioner has been working in the Chavara Unit of the Company for the last more than 13 years. The petitioner stands transferred to Manavalakurichy Unit after a period of 13 years. The petitioner would urge that there are other senior Officers working in the Chavara Unit for a longer duration and the petitioner alone is discriminated in spite of the fact that the petitioner’s wife is suffering from 40% disability.

12. In the matter of transfer, a comparison with other persons holding different positions cannot be drawn, as the transfers are made in administrative exigencies. The petitioner cannot claim a legal right on the basis of others continuing in the Station for a longer period.

13. As regards Exts.P2 and P3 Official Memorandums of the Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions, Government of India, while giving protection to care-givers of dependent daughter / son / parents / spouse / brother / sister with Specified Disability, the said Office Memorandums make it amply clear that such exemption would be subject to administrative constraints.

14. As the Company is dealing with atomic minerals, security is a major requirement of the Company. The respondents, therefore, will be justified in effecting transfer of persons, who are in charge of Security, taking into consideration the security requirement of the Company. Under Articles 226 of the Constitution of India, this Court will not be justified in re-assessing the security requirements / needs of a sensitive organization. In this case, the petitioner has not alleged any mala fide in transfer. No violation of statutory Rules are pointed out.

15. In the facts and circumstances of the case, I do not find any reason to interfere with the impugned orders.

                  The writ petition fails and it is dismissed.