JUDGMENT AND ORDER : 1. Heard Mr. Somik Deb, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as Mr. H. Deb, learned Asst. S.G. of India appearing for the respondents. 2. By means of this petition, the petitioner has challenged his summer chain transfer, 2016 in respect of SI/MIN from GC AGT/TPA to 105 RAF BN by the order under No. T.IX.12/2016-RAF-ADM-II dated 02.03.2016, Annexure-P/5 to the writ petition. According to the petitioner, in terms of the transfer policy as contained in the standing order No. T.IX-Instn/2014-Min dated 06.02.2014, Annexure-P/1 to the writ petition, he has already crossed two years to be considered for transfer from the hard area posting. The petitioner made the representation in the provided format to be posted in one of the following battalions or hospitals under Bihar Sector, CRPF: (i) 131 Bn. CRPF (ii) 153 Bn. CRPF (iii) GC, CRPF, Muzaffarpur (iv) Composite Hospital, CRPF, Muzaffarpur. The petitioner who is a Sub-Inspector working in the CRPF has also stated the reasons for seeking transfer in the said representation in format. He sought for his posting in one of those preferred places as his mother is suffering from heart diseases requiring bye-pass surgery at the earliest, marriage of his daughter has to be arranged, the family residence is in a dilapidated condition and is required to be reconstructed or a new house has to be built and further, his wife is posted as a Staff Nurse in Drbhanga Medical College Hospital, Darbhanga (Bihar). In addition, he has shown that his son, namely Subham Kumar, who is studying in Class-IX in Kendriya Vidyalaya at Group Centre, CRPF, Agartala has been staying with him and he is expected to face the board examination in the next year. To ensure his proper study, if he can stay with his son at Agartala, it would be beneficial for him. During the summer chain consideration, the petitioner has been transferred to the said place of posting as stated. By filing a representation on 22.03.2016, the petitioner had requested to the competent authority for allowing him retention for one year in CRPF Group Centre, Agartala. But according to Mr. Somik Deb, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, even the said representation has been turned down. 3. Mr. By filing a representation on 22.03.2016, the petitioner had requested to the competent authority for allowing him retention for one year in CRPF Group Centre, Agartala. But according to Mr. Somik Deb, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, even the said representation has been turned down. 3. Mr. Deb, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner could have been given posting in one of the preferred places as the petitioner has continuously posted in the hard areas from 2009 till date. Mr. Deb, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner having referred to the following Clause has contended that the petitioner has completed ‘Cooling off period’ and as such, he would have been given the choice posting: “Cooling off period: means reckoning of period between two consecutive postings to a particular Zone/Sector or station/region/NCR including cases pertains to choice posting.” Clause-4 of the said transfer policy provides that for the soft area posting, tenure would be 4 years, whereas for the hard area posting, tenure would be 10 years for the SI (MIN). 4. The petitioner has continuously served in the hard area posting for more than 7(seven) years. According to him, his representation regarding posting at the place of his choice was not properly considered by the competent authority within the terms of the transfer policy, Annexure-P/1 to the writ petition. In this regard, Mr. Deb, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has relied on a decision of the apex court in Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan vs. Damodar Prasad Pandey and Others, (2004) 12 SCC 299 , where the apex court has observed as under: “Unless the order of transfer is visited by mala-fide or is made in violation of operative guidelines, the court cannot interfere with it.” This observation of the apex court is based on its previous decision in Union of India vs. S.L. Abbas, (1993) 4 SCC 357 . 5. Based thereon, Mr. Deb, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has further submitted that when the policy has provided something, denial to that makes this action justiceable. 6. From the other side, Mr. H. Deb, learned Asst. 5. Based thereon, Mr. Deb, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has further submitted that when the policy has provided something, denial to that makes this action justiceable. 6. From the other side, Mr. H. Deb, learned Asst. S.G. of India appearing for the respondents has submitted that though Para-2(h) of the said transfer policy treats the whole North Eastern Region as hard area and Para-7C(h) (ii) of the standing order No. 02/2014 provides for choice posting after hard area posting, but that is subject to the fulfillment of other terms and conditions of the transfer policy. According to Mr. Deb, learned Asst. S.G. of India appearing for the respondents, in the present case, the petitioner was earlier posted in GC/CH Muzafarpur w.e.f. 12.06.2009 to 13.10.2013 for about 4(four) years and 4(four) months and has not completed necessary ‘Cooling off’ period of 4(four) years for re-posting to the Muzaffarpur based offices as per Para-10(d) of the transfer policy standing order No. 02/2014. Thus, the petitioner was not found eligible for posting to Muzafarpur based offices as per his choices and on the recommendation of Departmental Transfer Committee, he has been posted to RAF Sector by the said transfer order dated 15.02.2016 and finally, he has been posted to 105 RAF Bn. Coimbatore by IG RAF vide Signal No. T.IX-12/2016-RAF-Adm-II dated 02.03.2016 as per policy. According to Mr. Deb, learned Asst. S.G. of India appearing for the respondents, there is no infirmity in the said transfer order and the petitioner does not have any indefeasible right to get transfer to his preferred place of posting. Mr. Deb, learned Asst. S.G. has further submitted that as per Para-10(d) of the transfer policy, the Cooling off period for reposing to same station/ region/NCR as defined in Para-7(c) will be 4(four) years subject to availability of vacancies and administrative feasibility. As such, the petitioner was not found to be eligible to be posted in the same station i.e. Muzafarpur and accordingly, he has been transferred and there is no breach of the policy as alleged in the writ petition. Since the petitioner himself wanted a period of retention in the CRPF Group Centre, Agartala on the ground that his son is studying in the Kendriya Vidyalaya, CRPF Group Centre, Agartala, this Court requested Mr. Deb, learned Asst. S.G. of India to take instruction whether such accommodation can be made by the respondents. Accordingly, Mr. Since the petitioner himself wanted a period of retention in the CRPF Group Centre, Agartala on the ground that his son is studying in the Kendriya Vidyalaya, CRPF Group Centre, Agartala, this Court requested Mr. Deb, learned Asst. S.G. of India to take instruction whether such accommodation can be made by the respondents. Accordingly, Mr. Deb, learned Asst. S.G. of India has placed today a written instruction which reads as under: “OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE TRIPURA SECTOR, CRPF, USHABAZAR, AGARTALA (WEST TRIPURA) No. J.II-2/2016-TPA(P/Cell) Dated, the 2nd September, 2016 To, Shri Himangshu Deb, Assistant Solicitor General of India, High Court of Tripura, Agartala Subject: REG: W.P. (C) No. 255/2016 & I.A. No. 472/2016 filed by Binod Paswan vs. UOI and Others In The Hon’ble High Court of Tripura. Please refer to your remarks made in the Court diary on 20.09.2016. 2. As desired by the Hon’ble High Court of Tripura, case for retention of Binod Paswan at GC CRPF Agartala for one year as per his application dated 16.02.2016, was taken up with DIG (Org) Dte (Competent authority) vide this office signal dated 20.09.2016. Now DIG (Org) Dte vide their signal No. T.IX.40/2016-Min-DA- 2 dated 20.09.2016 has intimated the followings: “Retention request of the petitioner is examined with reference to grounds of request, his previous postings and provisions of transfer policy as well as other allied aspects of the case. The petitioner is posted in GC Agartala w.e.f. 14.10.2013 has completed 2 years 11 months against prescribed tenure of 2 years. His substitute has already been provided to GC Agartala during Summer Chain Transfer-2016. At present no vacancy of SI/M exists in GC Agartala. Further, there is no provision in transfer policy for extension of transfer beyond prescribed tenure. However, the grounds taken by the petitioner for pursuing education of son who studying in Class 9th standard in KV GC Agartala does not seems to be genuine. It is easy to transfer from KV to KV in Class 9th. KV facilities are also available in Coimbatore and there should be no problems for transfer of his ward in class 9th from KV Agartala to Coimbatore. It may be little more difficulties in class 10th & 12th. However, if the petitioner is still insisted on this ground for retention at present place of posting upto completion of current academic session. KV facilities are also available in Coimbatore and there should be no problems for transfer of his ward in class 9th from KV Agartala to Coimbatore. It may be little more difficulties in class 10th & 12th. However, if the petitioner is still insisted on this ground for retention at present place of posting upto completion of current academic session. His transfer can be deferred upto March, 2017 on humanitarian grounds subject to condition that he gives an undertaking that he will proceed on transfer to 105 Bn RAF Coimbatore on 01.04.2007 without any problems. CRPF has all India service liability and transfer within department is an administrative matter, required to be regulated as per transfer policies.” 3. In view of the above, it is requested the above facts may kindly be apprised to the Hon’ble Court for further action please. Sd/- Illegible (R.N. Biroli) Dy. Commandant (Law) Tripura Sector HQr., CRPF” 7. Mr. Deb, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner having taken instruction from the petitioner has submitted that if the petitioner is agreeable to get his transfer deferred till March, 2007 as proposed on humanitarian grounds, the petitioner shall submit the undertaking in terms of the instruction. On the face of such submission, Mr. Deb, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has urged that the petitioner be considered afresh on expiry of the retention period as proposed. 8. Having regard to the circumstances as emerged, this Court is constrained to observe that this Court cannot pass such order. However, if the petitioner is inclined to take the benefit of retention as proposed that his transfer can be deferred upto March, 2017 on humanitarian grounds subject to the condition that he gives undertaking that he will proceed on transfer to 105 Bn. RAF Coimbatore on 01.04.2017 without any problems, then he shall file such undertaking within 23.09.2016 with a copy of this order. However, the petitioner shall be at liberty to file a fresh representation to the competent authority for reconsideration of his posting on transfer having regard to the difficulties he has shown in his representation and the competent authority in their discretion may decide the said representation. 9. Having held so, this writ petition stands disposed of with the observation as made above. However, there shall be no order as to costs.