Research › Search › Judgment

Tripura High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 197 (TRI)

Chandra Sekhar Behera v. Union of India

2016-08-18

U.B.SAHA

body2016
JUDGEMENT AND ORDER : 1. The instant writ petition is filed by the petitioner, a Pharmacist in Central Reserve Police Force (for short hereinafter referred to as CRPF) challenging the order of his transfer dated 24.09.2015 (Annexure P-2 to the writ petition) from Group Centre, CRPF, Agartala, Tripura to 28th Bn. CRPF, Srinagar, Jammu & Kashmir. The petitioner has also challenged the order dated 30.10.2015 (Annexure P-4 to the writ petition) whereby his prayer for re-consideration of transfer was rejected by the authority as well as the order dated 28.06.2016 (Annexure P-6 to the writ petition) wherein the authority again has rejected the request of the petitioner after re-examination of his prayer. 2. Heard Mr. Somik Deb, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as Mr. H. Deb, learned Assistant SG appearing for the respondents. 3. Grievance of the petitioner, in the instant writ petition is that for a continuous period of 6 years 8 months the petitioner was posted in the hard areas, namely, Jammu & Kashmir and Assam and thereafter he had tendered a request on 03.01.2000 for his choice posting so that he can solve his family problems but the said prayer of the petitioner was not allowed. On 24.09.2015, the petitioner was transferred to Srinagar, Jammu & Kashmir and thereafter again he made a representation on 30.09.2015 to retain him till completion of the requisite period to urge for summer chain transfer. Vide Signal Order dated 30.10.2015 issued by the IG/Director (Medical), the same was refused and the petitioner was directed to report for his duties at 28th Bn., CRPF, Srinagar, Jammu & Kashmir. It is further stated that, after completion of his tenure at Srinagar for a period of three years, he was posted at Tinsukia, Assam in 69th Bn., CRPF and thereafter he was at Ranga Reddy from 21.07.2003 to 31.10.2005 at ‘D’ category station. On completion of his tenure at Ranga Raddy, the petitioner was again transferred to Srinagar which is a Group ‘C’ station. On 22.09.2007 to 23.06.2012, the petitioner was at 6th Bn., CRPF at Andhra Pradesh, Bihar and West Bengal which are ‘B’ category stations and finally on 29.06.2012, the petitioner was transferred to Group Centre, Agartala, from where vide impugned Signal Order dated 24.09.2015, the petitioner was transferred from Group Centre, Agartala to 28th Bn., CRPF at Srinagar which is a Group ‘C’ category stations. 4. 4. Being aggrieved by the said impugned Order of transfer, the petitioner made a representation to the Inspector General (Medical), Director General, CRPF on 30.09.2015 for reconsidering his transfer Order to 28th Bn. CRPF as he was earlier also deployed in Jammu & Kashmir. Vide Signal Order dated 30.10.2015, the prayer of the petitioner was rejected. Thereafter, vide Signal Order dated 28.06.2016, the Inspector General, CRPF was requested to release him immediately as his service is very essential at 28th Bn. Hence, this writ petition. 5. By way of filing affidavit in opposition, the respondents have specifically stated that the petitioner has been transferred as per guidelines issued by the Ministry of Personnel, PG & Pensions, Department of Personnel & Training, Government of India, dated 02.07.2015 and thus the claim of the petitioner that he was transferred violating the Standing Order no. 09/2015 is not correct. The further case of the respondent is that the petitioner was received on transfer from 66th Bn. CRPF at Kewakol, West Bengal to Group Centre, CRPF, Agartala, a Group ‘C’ station and after availing static posting at Group Centre, Agartala in North-East region, he is not eligible for static or soft posting and now he is due for posting to the location of category ‘A’ as per existing Rules and accordingly the petitioner was posted in 28th Bn. CRPF. It is also stated in the affidavit in opposition that the Summer Chain Transfer orders of Para-medical staffs for the year 2016 have been issued after thoroughly examined by a Board of Officers constituted at Drectorate, CRPF in ‘fully transparent manner without any bias’. 6. Mr. Somik Deb, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the Group Centre, Agartala where the petitioner is at present working is a hard area i.e. ‘A’ category and thus he cannot be transferred to 28th Bn at Srinagar which is also a hard area i.e. category ‘A’. He further submits that the parents of the petitioner are suffering from medical problems. 7. Mr. H. Deb, learned Assistant SG appearing for the respondents while refuting the contentions of Mr. Deb would contend that the petitioner being serving as Pharmacist in the medical unit of CRPF cannot claim a Choice Posting after serving at a soft area i.e. category C’ stations at Agartala in the Para Military force. 7. Mr. H. Deb, learned Assistant SG appearing for the respondents while refuting the contentions of Mr. Deb would contend that the petitioner being serving as Pharmacist in the medical unit of CRPF cannot claim a Choice Posting after serving at a soft area i.e. category C’ stations at Agartala in the Para Military force. His further contention is that both West Tripura, Salbagan,Tripura and Srinagar, Jammu & Kashmir are the ‘C’ category stations. According to Mr. Deb, the application of the petitioner dated 25.06.2016 for Choice Posting was examined by the Medical Directorate but could not find favours due to administrative requirements/ exigencies of services in the light of the transfer policy (Annexure P-1 to the writ petition). Choice Posting can be considered only on the verge of retirement, as far as possible for last two years of service. He has also contended that as per paragraph 7(iii) of the Standing order no. 9/15 ‘Personnel (Pharmacist & N/Asstt) posted in locations at category ‘B’ and ‘C’ will be transferred to Unit/Offices located at category ‘A’. Thus, the present posting of the petitioner is not violative of transfer policy when he was transferred at category ‘C’ place of posting at Srinagar, Jammu & Kashmir. Employer is the best authority to decide when and where an employee would be transferred for the public interest, Mr. Deb further submits. 8. This Court has gone through the contentions made by the parties as well as the transfer policy for the para medical staffs (Annexure P-1) from which it appears that there are Hard Filled stations which are category ‘A’, Filled stations which are category ‘B’ and Static/Peace stations which are category ‘C’. From the annexures of the aforesaid policy it appears that both West Tripura and Srinagar are Group ‘C’ category. Thus, it cannot be said that the petitioner was transferred from a Soft station to a Hard station. Moreso, the petitioner is working as a Pharmacist, a para medical staff. It is also admitted position that the petitioner was working at Group Centre, Agartala for more than four years though the normal tenure is three years. The petitioner nowhere in his petition made any allegation that his transfer was done with malafide or with an oblique motive. Moreso, the petitioner is working as a Pharmacist, a para medical staff. It is also admitted position that the petitioner was working at Group Centre, Agartala for more than four years though the normal tenure is three years. The petitioner nowhere in his petition made any allegation that his transfer was done with malafide or with an oblique motive. His only contention is that if the Choice posting is not provided to him then he will not be in a position to look after his old ailing father. 9. Court cannot look into the family problems of an employee as the same can be considered only by the employer when transfer of an employee is an incident of service. Court can only interfere on a transfer order when the said transfer order is either malafide or issued with an oblique motive but the transfer order impugned is a valid one and thus it would not be proper to interfere with the transfer order. 10. In view of the above, the instant writ petition is dismissed being devoid of merit. Interim order, passed earlier, stands vacated. However, dismissal of the writ petition would not be a bar for making any further representation by the petitioner. No order as to costs.