Read Time: 08 minutes

Synopsis

The Delhi High Court, recently, affirmed that contractual arrangements must yield to legislative frameworks. Such observations were made in an appeal filed by IRCON against the judgment of a single judge annulling the transfer orders of the differently-abled employee.  

“A contractual arrangement between parties, including an employment contract, is always subordinate to the legislative framework governing the field occupied by the subject contract”, the bench of Justice Rajiv Shakdher and Justice Amit Bansal held. 

IRCON International Limited (IRCON IL) lodged an appeal against a judgment of a Single Judge, which annulled the transfer orders affecting Bhavneet Singh, a differently-abled employee. Bhavneet Singh commenced his tenure with IRCON on December 15, 2017, as an Assistant Manager. His probationary period was extended in December 2018, and he was confirmed in August 2019. On March 30, 2020, Singh was transferred on deputation to the IRCON office in Noida and was repatriated to IRCON on March 9, 2022.

Singh raised grievances with the Chief Commissioner for Persons with Disabilities on December 17, 2020, citing issues such as the refusal to issue a No Objection Certificate and derogatory comments regarding his disability. An inquiry was initiated, though its outcome remains unspecified. Additionally, on July 18, 2022, Singh’s legal counsel submitted a draft writ action to IRCON IL, seeking judicial intervention.

Singh contested a third transfer attempt, which was issued on August 22, 2022, relocating him from Delhi to Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. Singh alleged that this transfer was retaliatory and harmful to his well-being due to his disability. A relieving order was subsequently issued on August 23, 2022, despite Singh’s appeal for reconsideration.

Advocate Debarshi Bhadra, representing IRCON, argued that the Single Judge granted Bhavneet Singh relief that exceeded the relief sought. The Single Judge ordered that Bhavneet Singh not be transferred to any other state due to his medical condition and ongoing treatment, as such a transfer could impede his recovery. It was argued that there was a lack of evidence to show that the medical treatment Bhavneet Singh received in Delhi was unavailable in Bilaspur. It was possible that he could access, if not superior, at least the same level of medical treatment in Bilaspur.

On the other hand, Advocate Padma Priya, representing Bhavneet Singh argued that the Single Judge correctly applied the provisions of the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act 1995, the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD), and relevant Circulars/OMs. She contended that differently-abled persons should be exempt from rotational transfers and their preferences for posting should be considered, subject to administrative constraints. It was further asserted that the rights under Articles 14, 15, 16, and 21 of the Constitution should be preserved and protected for differently-abled persons. 

The court, regarding the issue of ‘burden to prove administrative exigency not discharged by IRCON’, noted that when a transfer order was issued concerning a differently-abled individual, the employer bore the responsibility to demonstrate that the transfer was necessary due to administrative exigencies or constraints. In this case, IRCON failed to fulfill this obligation. Additionally, the claim that other employees, who had been at a single location for five years or more, could have been transferred instead of Bhavneet Singh was dismissed as a mere rebuttal.

Furthermore, the court noted that Bhavneet Singh was transferred twice within five years, between the Delhi and Noida offices. While these transfers were within the Delhi region, they could be disruptive for a differently-abled person like Bhavneet. 

The court noted that Bhavneet Singh appears to be a diligent employee who has consistently improved his performance since his appointment in 2017. Despite this, an attempt was made to undermine his credibility by suggesting poor performance and misconduct. The APRs contradict IRCON’s assertion that unsatisfactory performance was not substantiated as no formal disciplinary proceedings were initiated.

The court further held that contractual agreements, including employment contracts, are subordinate to legislative frameworks governing the subject matter. Statutory protections can override contractual terms. 

The court, accordingly, dismissed the appeal and ordered IRCON to remit the Bhavneet Singh within 2 weeks. 

Case Title: IRCON International Ltd v Bhavneet Singh