4 min readNew DelhiJun 16, 2026 02:00 PM IST
First published on: Jun 16, 2026 at 02:00 PM IST
Calcutta High Court news: Holding that transfer is not a matter of right, and that no employee can claim a vested right to remain at a particular posting indefinitely, the Calcutta High Court nevertheless granted interim relief to a 59-year-old contractual doctor who challenged her transfer to Diglipur Island on medical grounds.
Justice Reetobroto Kumar Mitra held that since the petitioner, Dr Smily John, is 59 years old and suffers from a medical condition, the authorities should reconsider her request upon examination of an appropriate medical certificate issued by a constituted medical board.
“Transfer is not a matter of right nor is continuation in a particular place for a prolonged period of time a right given to any person. If the situation so demands and for administrative exigency, a person who has entered into a contract of employment with the state authority is bound to accept the order of transfer and take steps in accordance therein,” the June 12 order read.
The high court was hearing the plea filed by Dr Smily John, challenging the June 9, 2026 order issued by officials of the National Health Mission (NHM) and the National Ayush Mission (NAM), directing her transfer to Diglipur Island in the Andaman and Nicobar Islands.
‘Authorities must revisit transfer decision’
- The court held that the petitioner would be at liberty to submit a medical certificate from a duly constituted medical board in terms of the April 19, 2018 circular.
- The court noted that the April 19, 2018 circular provides for a transfer policy for the central government employee
- It directed the competent authority to consider the medical certificate and reconsider the transfer decision in light of the medical opinion.
- The court held that the petitioner is granted liberty to produce an appropriate certificate by the constituted medical board as stipulated in the circular of April 19, 2018.
- The court further directed the authority to consider such medical certificate and revisit the issue of transfer of the petitioner in light of such medical certificate alone.
- The court held that the order of June 9 should be kept in abeyance till the issue is revisited by the authority by July 31.
- However, the court clarified that the interim protection should not be construed as creating any right in favour of the petitioner to permanently avoid the transfer to Diglipur.
Transfer order, litigation
It was placed on record that the petitioner is a contractual employee with the NHM. She had sought interim relief against her transfer to Diglipur Island, contending that her medical condition made it unsuitable for her to serve at such a remote location.
The petitioner had earlier approached the high court, which, by an order dated May 21, directed the authorities to decide on her request regarding the proposed transfer.
Pursuant to that direction, the authorities issued the June 9 transfer order posting her to Diglipur Island, which she subsequently challenged before the high court.
Arguments
Appearing for the petitioner, advocate Gopala Binnu Kumar argued that the petitioner is a contractual employee with the NHM and is not covered by the transfer policy of April 19, 2018, which applies only to central government employees.
It was further contended that the petitioner, being a lady of 59 years of age, with less than two years of service left, cannot be transferred to the Diglipur Island.
Representing the authority, advocates V D Sivabalan and Arun S Kumar argued that the April 19, 2018 circular squarely applied to the petitioner and that there was no justification for stalling the transfer on medical grounds.
They further submitted that the petitioner had failed to furnish the requisite medical certificate from a constituted medical board, which alone could have been considered by the authorities while examining her request for exemption from transfer.