Court steps in to shield 59-year-old doctor from remote posting on medical grounds

4 min readNew DelhiJun 16, 2026 02:00 PM IST

The Calcutta High Court clarified that the interim protection should not be construed as creating any right in favour of the doctor to permanently avoid her transfer to Diglipur. (AI-generated image)

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.

Story continues below this ad

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.

Story continues below this ad

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.

Richa Sahay is a Legal Correspondent for The Indian Express, where she focuses on simplifying the complexities of the Indian judicial system. A law postgraduate, she leverages her advanced legal education to bridge the gap between technical court rulings and public understanding, ensuring that readers stay informed about the rapidly evolving legal landscape.

Expertise

Advanced Legal Education: As a law postgraduate, Richa possesses the academic depth required to interpret intricate statutes and constitutional nuances. Her background allows her to provide more than just summaries; she offers context-driven analysis of how legal changes impact the average citizen.

Specialized Beat: She operates at the intersection of law and public policy, focusing on:

Judicial Updates: Providing timely reports on orders from the Supreme Court of India and various High Courts.

Legal Simplification: Translating dense "legalese" into accessible, engaging narratives without sacrificing factual accuracy.

Legislative Changes: Monitoring new bills, amendments, and regulatory shifts that shape Indian society. ... Read More

Tags:

Calcutta High Court