Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 499 (GAU)

Laishram Lokendra Singh v. Union Of India

2020-05-18

ACHINTYA MALLA BUJOR BARUA

body2020
JUDGMENT Achintya Malla Bujor Barua, J. - Heard Mr. L. Dihingia, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. S.C. Keyal, learned ASGI for the respondent. 2. By the office order dated 12.07.2019 the petitioner along with several other personnel were transferred from their present place of posting to their respective places. At Serial No.3 of the part rationalization transfers the petitioner who was earlier posted under the frontier headquarter at Guwahati had been transferred and posted to frontier headquarter at Patna in public interest. 3. The petitioner instituted an earlier writ petition being WP(C) 6410/2019 which was given a final consideration by the order dated 02.09.2019. In the said writ petition, a stand was taken that the petitioner had submitted a representation for a modification of the transfer order and the said representation was rejected without taking into consideration two of the grounds raised that the petitioner''s elder mother who is a heart patient resides with him and the petitioner''s elderly son is a student of Class-IX of Delhi Public School, Khanapara. It is further contended that the order of transfer would completely dislocate his family life. A stand was also taken that as per the circular dated 09.05.2019, the tenure of posting in a frontier location would be 8 years, whereas, the petitioner was transferred to Guwahati Frontier location in the year 2015. In the premises, by the order dated 02.09.2019, the petitioner was required to file fresh representation highlighting the aforesaid aspects and thereupon the respondents were required to pass a reasoned order. It was further provided that till a reasoned/speaking order is being passed, the order of transfer of the petitioner would be kept in abeyance. 4. In the resultant circumstance, the order dated 20.09.2019 was passed by the Commandant (Pers-III) in the Directorate General Sashastra Seema Bal. As per the said order in Clause-9, it was provided that the request of the individual was examined and found that the individual was given ample opportunity to serve for more than 18 years in the North East Region despite having an All India transfer liability and as such, it would not feasible to allow him to continue in the same location in the organizational public interest as well as it will set a wrong precedence in the force. Clause-10 provides that keeping in view the illness of the mother of the petitioner and the non completion of the academic session 2019-20 of his son, the transfer from the Frontier Hqus. Guwahti to 47th Bn Ramgarhwa was deferred upto March 2020 in respect of the petitioner. 5. After being satisfied with the said order up to March 2020, the petitioner has now instituted the present writ petition and the same set of grounds are being urged upon that the mother of the petitioner who lives with him is suffering from certain illness and the son of the petitioner has in the meantime been promoted to Class-X and his board examination would be held sometime in March 2021. It is stated that the earlier ground of the tenure of posting in the Frontier location is 8 years is again been reiterated based upon the circular dated 09.05.2019. All that the circular provides is that the tenure of posting in the Frontier location would be for 8 years. Both the aforesaid locations in Guwahati as well as in Patna are within the concept of Frontier location and therefore, a transfer from another Frontier location to another would not invite the provision of the circular dated 09.05.2019 for the purpose to determine the tenure of 8 years in a Frontier location. As regards the illness of the elderly mother of the petitioner, no material has been produced as regards the nature of illness nor that appropriate medical attention would not be available in Patna for such illness. As regards the stand of the petitioner that the son of the petitioner has recently been promoted to ClassX and he would appear in his board examination in March, 2021, we have been told that many such employees within the respondent authorities may be in the similar circumstance and therefore, that by itself cannot be a reason to maintain the status quo as regards the transfer of such employees unless of course it is specifically shown that the education of the son of the petitioner would so severally be affected that it requires a further consideration from the authoritie. From the said points of view, we are unable to find any reason that the order of transfer dated 12.07.2019 is required to be interfered. From the said points of view, we are unable to find any reason that the order of transfer dated 12.07.2019 is required to be interfered. It is more so so, in view of the order dated 20.09.2019, which was to be satisfaction of the petitioner, that his tenure in the present place of posting would be extended upto March 2020. However, we have taken note of that the office order dated 12.07.2019 provides that the further posting of the personnel who are transferred pursuant to the said order would carry a perference to one of their choice station which would be decided by the concerned authorities under intimation to all concerned. We have also taken note of that after being transferred to Patna frontier location, the petitioner had been allotted the place of posting in the 47th Bn Ramgarhwa. 6. As, the posting at 47th Bn Ramgarhwa may invite inconvenience as regards the illness of the mother of the petitioner and the education of his elder son, the petitioner would make a representation to the authorities to give him a choice place of posting within the Patna frontier location so that both the inconveniences are taken care of and in the event such representation is made it be given a consideration by the appropriate authority of the respondent. Till such order is being passed on the representation of the petitioner as regards the choice place of posting within the Patna frontier, the status quo be maintained till the reasoned order is passed. The representation be submitted within a period of 7 days from today and after the representation is submitted, it be given a consideration within a period of another 7 days from the date of receipt of the representation. In the event, the representation is not submitted within 7 days from today, the interim order shall not hold its force. It is provided that once the reasoned order is passed, the interim order shall merge with such reasoned order to be passed. 7. Writ petition stands disposed of.