JUDGMENT : C. Praveen Kumar, J. 1. Aggrieved by the order dated 05-02-2021 in W.P.No.16852 of 2020, wherein the request of the petitioner to retain him at the place where he is working till the completion of maximum station criteria of 5 years, was rejected, the present Writ Appeal came to be filed. 2. The factual matrix of the case, as disclosed in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, is as under : The writ petitioner joined service as Navik on 31st July, 2000. On completion of his basic and professional training, he served in 13 different ships/units at five different stations in his 20 years of service so far. He is presently working at Visakhapatnam Chetak Flight as Adhikari (Radio Operator) since 19.06.2017. While things stood thus, the impugned order came to be passed transferring him to the office of Regional Operation Centre (ROC), Kolkata. It is averred that as per the procedure, the authorities issued Block Transfers (BT) in the month of December, 2019, in which the petitioner was shown to have been transferred to ROC, Kolkata, with the Date of Reporting (DOR) as 06.01.2020. Initially the date of reporting was postponed to 06.05.2020 and subsequently the entire Block Transfers was kept in abeyance due to Covid-19. The respondents have Re-Formulated Block Transfers promulgated by BUVIK on 26.06.2020. As the transfers of most of the Enrolled Personnel (EP) were cancelled, except that of the petitioner, he made a representation, dated 03.07.2020, through proper channel, pleading retainment at Visakhapatnam due to spread of the Covid pandemic and having regard to the guidelines issued by the Government of India. According to him, lives of the family members would be at stake if they leave Visakhapatnam at this critical time. He further pleads retainment due to the health condition of his mother, who is aged about 61 years; protection of his ancestral property admeasuring 250 square yards of vacant land at Visakhapatnam and as the wife of the petitioner underwent some surgeries in Service Hospital i.e., Ectopic abortion in 2009, etc. It is pleaded that as per the guidelines issued by the Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India, dated 29.06.2020, the Coast Guard Authority issued Re- Formulation Block Transfer-2020 with 50% cancellation of transfers and 50% amended DOR up to August, 2020. It is pleaded that as per the guidelines issued by the Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India, dated 29.06.2020, the Coast Guard Authority issued Re- Formulation Block Transfer-2020 with 50% cancellation of transfers and 50% amended DOR up to August, 2020. While, in other security services, transfer orders were postponed till April, 2021, so as to protect the employees and their families from Covid virus, but, in utter disregard to those guidelines, the request of the petitioner to retain him at Visakhapatnam was not considered. He further pleads that as ROC (Kolkata) is yet to be activated/established, there is no necessity for posting him at the said place. He further pleads that during his 20 years of service he never pleaded for deferment or cancellation of transfer on any personal or domestic ground and present request is only to protect himself and his family from Covid-19. According to him, in the name of exigency of service, the organisation is playing with the safety of Enrolled Personnel and their family. 3. In support of his plea, the counsel for the appellant took us through the Re-Formulation of Block Transfer-2020, dated 26.06.2020 to show that the transfers of many EP have been cancelled and retained beyond station criteria as a one time measure; the representation made by the petitioner on 03.07.2020 and the order dated 20.07.2020 passed by the authority rejecting his request for cancellation/deferment of transfer and also for voluntary retirement. 4. Sri N. Harinath, learned Assistant Solicitor, appearing for the respondents, opposed the same. According to him, the appellant was enrolled in the Indian Coast Guard, a unit of Armed Force of the Union, who are governed by the Coast Guard Act, 1978. According to him, the appellant completed 20 years of service with the Indian Coast Guard, after being trained in communication equipment. Out of 20 years of service, the appellant served 12 years 6 months in eastern region, out of which he has served for more than 8 ½ years in Andhra Pradesh, which is his native State. Referring to Rule 13(1) of the Coast Guard (Conditions of Service) Rules, 1986, he submits that all Enrolled Personnel are liable for transfer within the service. Referring to Rule 13(1) of the Coast Guard (Conditions of Service) Rules, 1986, he submits that all Enrolled Personnel are liable for transfer within the service. Though the transfer of the appellant was to be carried out on 06.01.2020 itself, as he is an experienced subordinate officer in Remote Operational Station duties, but it was deferred till 04.05.2020 on his request. Due to the pandemic, his date of reporting was further deferred till 31.08.2020 in Re-Formulation Block Transfer. Subsequently, the 3rd respondent requested further deferment of 30 days, by mutual concurrence between respondent Nos.6 and 2 in the writ petition, for completing disciplinary proceeding against the appellant, initiated due to his unauthorized claim of HRA and A&N allowances, and accordingly the date of reporting was extended till 15.09.2020. According to him, the allegation that the appellant alone was transferred intentionally is incorrect and that a total of 1349 EP have been transferred to far flung areas and out of them, 512 EP have children below one year. 5. It is also submitted that as per Section 7 of Coast Guard Act, 1978, every member of the coast guard shall be liable to serve in any part of India as well as outside India and transfer of an employee is the prerogative of the employer and cannot be challenged, more so, when it was done in accordance with the requirement of their services at a particular place. He further submits that the appellant was summarily tried under Section 57 of the Coast Guard Act, 1978 for being unauthorisedly absent at his station on five occasions, for which he was awarded punishments of (i) Deprivation of Good Conduct Badge and (ii) Mulcts of pay and allowances for 256 days during April 2003 to February 2013. Further, in the month of May, 2019, the appellant was charged for disorderly conduct in Thevera Bridge, Ernakulam and for driving without license in an intoxicated state, causing damage to another Government vehicle. He is also said to have injured a Naval Sailor, for which he was awarded punishment of removal of his Good Conduct Badge. He also refers to the proceedings initiated against the appellant for his involvement in unauthorised and fraudulent claim of HRA and A&N Island allowances. 6. He is also said to have injured a Naval Sailor, for which he was awarded punishment of removal of his Good Conduct Badge. He also refers to the proceedings initiated against the appellant for his involvement in unauthorised and fraudulent claim of HRA and A&N Island allowances. 6. He further submits that though the appellant requested for posting at Visakhapatnam for a year, but, he is there since more than 3 years and his present transfer to Kolkata is only towards service requirements and not for any other purpose. In other words, he would submit that station criteria is a guideline for transfer and service personnel can be transferred if any requirement arises to meet the service exigency. Hence, he would submit that since the appellant is working under the Indian Coast Guard, which is a branch of the armed service and as his services are required in ROC Kolkata, his transfer cannot be found fault with. 7. From a perusal of the averments in the affidavit filed in support of the Writ Petition and the arguments advanced before this Court, it is clear that the request for retention at Visakhapatnam is due to the prevailing pandemic and health condition of appellant’s mother and wife, apart from the two minor children, who will be exposed to health hazards. Further, the plea of the appellant is that intentionally his case was not considered though the transfer of many EP have been cancelled and retained beyond station criteria as a one time measure. According to him, the same is evident from the letter, dated 03.07.2020, addressed by the appellant to the Flight Commandant. 8. Before proceeding further it would be relevant to extract the relevant paragraphs of the letter, dated 03.07.2020, which are as under :- “1. With due respect and humble regards, I hereby submit my request through proper channel Flight Cdr/COMDIS/COMCG(E)/CGC (ES) regarding cancellation/deferment of my transfer to ROC, Kolkota. DTBR: 31 Aug 2020. 2. I am under transfer to ROC, (KOL) with initial DOR 05 May 20. However, the BT was held in abeyance due to COVID-19. In the re-formulation of block transfers, though many EP transfers are cancelled view COVID-19, I am still under transfer to ROC (Kol) with deferred DOR as 31 Aug 20. Nil advance drawn. My reliever’s DOR is 13 Jul 20. I am presently in low medical category S3A2(Pmt). 3. However, the BT was held in abeyance due to COVID-19. In the re-formulation of block transfers, though many EP transfers are cancelled view COVID-19, I am still under transfer to ROC (Kol) with deferred DOR as 31 Aug 20. Nil advance drawn. My reliever’s DOR is 13 Jul 20. I am presently in low medical category S3A2(Pmt). 3. As you are aware that the spread of Corona pandemic is widespread and as on date the positive cases are more than 6 lakhs in the country. It is also a well known fact that extreme age groups below 10 yrs and above 60 yrs are highly prone to be infected of this deadly COVID virus. The CGHQ AD/0103/GEN dated 30 Jun 20 and Government of India has already issued guidelines vide MHA OM No.40- 3/2020-DM-1(A) Dated 29 jun 20 in this regard (both copies enclosed). The para 7 of above letter clearly states that children below age of 10 yrs are advised to stay at home except for essential and health purpose. Sir I have two small children in that age group i.e., 7 and 2 years of age respectively. 4. At one point of time, I thought of leaving my family behind at Vizag and proceed alone on transfer. With mass transmission of COVID virus in Visakhapatnam with rapid increase of Corona positive cases day by day, the present situation here is really scary. There are about 15 corona positive cases around 3 KM from my place of residence in Sujatha Nagar. Local people are afraid to even come out their houses. 5. In this situation, if I leave my family here and proceed on transfer, my wife along with two kids has to go out of the house for every day to day requirement, since she cannot leave small children at home within locked door. There are no close relatives to stay with her on permanent basis. This way my entire family will be surely exposed to the cruel Corona virus being very vulnerable. Hope you will understand my mental agony and I am in a tricky situation where one side is my family and other side is the Service requirement. It will be morally incorrect on my part to move away from my basic social responsibility of protecting them. Hope you will understand my mental agony and I am in a tricky situation where one side is my family and other side is the Service requirement. It will be morally incorrect on my part to move away from my basic social responsibility of protecting them. Moreover, recent gas leakage incident in LG Polymers, Visakhapatnam, where 12 people died and hundreds badly affected also put us in great fear, as I live close to that place. During that fateful day of gas leak, I along with family shifted to relatives place at far off distance. 6. …. …. …. …. 7. …. …. …. …. 8. In view of the above, I humble request you to consider my case very sympathetically on compassionate grounds and cancel/defer my transfer by one year, as per para 6 of Buvik letter 257/BT dated 26 Jun (copy enclosed). In case my request is not considered favourably due to service exigencies, I may be permitted to take Volunteer Retirement to give my family a well-protected life in this grave situation. This decision to take VR is my last resort and honestly against my wish, since I love to serve in this fine Service till the end of my career.” 9. Responding to the said letter, the authority passed an order on 20th July, 2020 rejecting the request of the appellant. The contents of which are as under : “2. The case for cancellation/deferment of permanent transfer by one year of the above mentioned SO to ROS Kolkata has been analysed at this headquarter and following emerged. (a) The SO is under permanent transfer to ROS Kolkata with D.O.R 31 Aug, 20 as per reformulated BT-20. (b) The SO has served for 03 years at Vizag (02 years at ROS (V) and 01 year at Vizag Chetak Flight) Covid-19 contagion has been quoted as the reason for seeking cancellation/deferment. (c) Further, Flight Commander, Vizag Chetak Flight has advised the SO to proceed to the next duty station and transfer family as and when the present situation improves. (d) The SO has requested for VRS from service in case cancellation/deferment. 3. It is submitted that the transfer promulgated is based on service exigencies and cancellation/deferment on the mentioned grounds is not recommended. However, the SO may seek deferment of transfer by 01 month para 6 of Buvik letter 257/BT, dated : 26 Jun, 2020. 4. (d) The SO has requested for VRS from service in case cancellation/deferment. 3. It is submitted that the transfer promulgated is based on service exigencies and cancellation/deferment on the mentioned grounds is not recommended. However, the SO may seek deferment of transfer by 01 month para 6 of Buvik letter 257/BT, dated : 26 Jun, 2020. 4. Further, approval/permission for VRS cannot be proceed on the basis of general request by the individual and a separate case in accordance with (i.a.w) Coast Guard Order (CGO) 11/96 needs to be initiated for same. The unit has been informed accordingly.” 10. A reading of the above two letters makes it clear that request of the appellant for voluntary retirement on his completion of 20 years of service was rejected and his transfer was based on service exigencies. 11. Further, the material on record goes to show that in BT 2017, the appellant requested for transfer to Visakhapatnam on the ground that after 3 ½ years of court case, his wife joined him on the basis of a compromise arrived at in Court proceedings and that he intends to stay with her at least for one year in Visakhapatnam. Accordingly, the transfer of the appellant to Visakhapatnam was considered in the year 2017 and he was retained there till 2020, though his request was for only one year. 12. The appellant is now claiming station criteria as the ground for retention and according to him any transfer made would be in violation of the same. Station criteria is a guideline for transfers and the Service Personnel can be transferred to meet the service exigencies. The averments in the counter show that service personnel have been transferred many a time to meet the requirements before completion of station criteria. It would be appropriate to note the statistics of transfer, before completion of station criteria in last three years, which are as under : Sl Year Total (i) 2017-2018 401 (ii) 2018-2019 291 (iii) 2019-2020 158 Outstation transfers before station criteria The same is not disputed by the counsel for the appellant. 13. Be that as it may, the claim of the appellant now is that in view of Re-Formulation of Block Transfer-2020 he ought not to have been transferred to Kolkata, having regard to Condition No.8 of the Re-Formulation Block Transfer. 13. Be that as it may, the claim of the appellant now is that in view of Re-Formulation of Block Transfer-2020 he ought not to have been transferred to Kolkata, having regard to Condition No.8 of the Re-Formulation Block Transfer. A reading of Re-Formulation of Block Transfer-2020, dated 26.06.2020, would show that BT-20 was promulgated on 01st December, 2019. The Block Transfer was prepared keeping in view various aspects like Station Criteria, Manning Plan and also to strike a balance between service as well as personal requirements of EP. The Re-Formulation of Block Transfer- 2020 further postulate that the same could not be given effect to in its entirety due to ongoing pandemic Covid-19, and all promulgated transfers were deferred. 14. Clauses-3 & 8 of the said letter dated 26th June, 2020 reads as under : “3. Re-formulation of pending transfers of BT-20/Post BT-20 have been carried out by the Bureau by considering various restrictions due to ongoing Covid-19 outbreak. All out efforts has been taken to restrict movements of EP by cancelling/amendments/delay DOR upto maximum possible extent. However, service requirement takes precedence in order to meet manpower requirements at various operational units and the inevitable necessity in forthcoming inductions. Further, a thorough scrutiny has also been carried out to ensure that manpower at all units are positioned as per manning plan. However, few units are likely to face a minimal shortage due to the present scenario of COVID-19. Units are assured that the shortage if any are noted and the same will be fulfilled when situation improves. The Reformulated BT-20 will be hosted on Bureau Website Unit Interface branch wise in a phased manner and will be intimated accordingly. 8. Due to current pandemic situation in the country, transfer of many EP has been cancelled and retained beyond station criteria as a onetime measure. The transfer of these EP will be considered in BT-21 or as and when service requirement exists. EPs whose wards are progressing to 9th or 11th standard in current academic year (2020-2021) and completing station criteria in BT-21 will also be transferred out in BT-21, notwithstanding conditions of education grounds. However, they may submit the willingness for transfer to hard station to retain accommodation. EPs whose wards are progressing to 9th or 11th standard in current academic year (2020-2021) and completing station criteria in BT-21 will also be transferred out in BT-21, notwithstanding conditions of education grounds. However, they may submit the willingness for transfer to hard station to retain accommodation. Further, EP with children studying in class 8th or 10th (as per BT-20 choice module) and whose promulgated transfer has been cancelled in re-formulated BT-20 may take up the case separately, if still willing for transfer.” 15. A reading of the above two clauses make it clear that due to current pandemic situation in the country, transfers of many EP have been cancelled or retained beyond station criteria as a one time measure, but, however, transfer of these EP was to be considered in BT-21 or as and when service requirement exists. Therefore, a harmonious reading of clause-8 of Re-Formulation Block of transfer 2020 with the letter, dated 20.07.2020, would show that due to the requirement of the appellant at ROC (Kolkata)/service exigency, he was asked to report therein initially in the month of January, 2020, but, due to personal request, it was deferred twice and ultimately he was asked to report by 31.08.2020. As the appellant failed to join, a letter, dated 13.02.2021, was issued by Vizag Chetak Flight (CG), ICGS Visakhapatnam, addressed to the appellant, directing him to report at ICGS Kolkata for duties with ROC, Kolkata, as permanent transfer from 13.02.2021, giving ten days time to join. 16. Further, Chapter-2 of the Transfer Regulations of Respondent refer to circumstances as to when Transfer of Personnel is to be effected, category of transfers, categorisation of statutes and station criteria. In the category of station criteria, it has to be categorically stated that posting at Visakhapatnam would be for 4-5 years but postings/transfers are subject to service exigencies. 17. Under those circumstances, can a transfer of an armed personnel due to service exigency be interfered with while exercising discretionary writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. It will be appropriate to refer to few judgments of the Apex Court on this issue. 18. In Major General J.K. Bansal v. Union of India & Ors., (2005) 7 SCC 227 the Apex Court in para 12 held as under : “12. It will be appropriate to refer to few judgments of the Apex Court on this issue. 18. In Major General J.K. Bansal v. Union of India & Ors., (2005) 7 SCC 227 the Apex Court in para 12 held as under : “12. It will be noticed that these decisions have been rendered in the case of civilian employees or those who are working in public sector undertakings. The scope of interference by the courts in regard to members of armed forces is far more limited and narrow. It is for the higher authorities to decide when and where a member of the armed forces should be posted. The courts should be extremely slow in interfering with an order of transfer of such category of persons and unless an exceptionally strong case is made out, no interference should be made.” 19. In Shilpi Bose v. State of Bihar, 1991 Supp (2) Supreme Court Cases 659 the Apex Court held as under : “4. In our opinion, the courts should not interfere with a transfer order which is made in public interest and for administrative reasons unless the transfer orders are made in violation of any mandatory statutory rule or on the ground of mala fide. A government servant holding a transferable post has no vested right to remain posted at one place or the other, he is liable to be transferred from one place to the other. Transfer orders issued by the competent authority do not violate any of his legal rights. Even if a transfer order is passed in violation of executive instructions or orders, the courts ordinarily should not interfere with the order instead affected party should approach the higher authorities in the department. If the courts continue to interfere with day-to-day transfer orders issued by the government and its subordinate authorities, there will be complete chaos in the administration which would not be conducive to public interest. The High Court overlooked these aspects in interfering with the transfer orders.” 20. In Dr.Balkrishna Pandey v. State, 1997 ACJ 1038 a Division Bench of this Court has held that if an employee is at a station for a long time and the transfer is made on administrative grounds, it cannot be said to be mala fide exercise of power. 21. In Dr.Balkrishna Pandey v. State, 1997 ACJ 1038 a Division Bench of this Court has held that if an employee is at a station for a long time and the transfer is made on administrative grounds, it cannot be said to be mala fide exercise of power. 21. At this stage it also to be noted that the appellant did make a representation expressing his hardship in case of transfer. His request was considered and his transfer was deferred for a considerable period of time. The allegation that the appellant alone was transferred intentionally also is incorrect. The counter affidavit filed by the respondent shows that about 1349 EP have been transferred to far flung areas and out of them, 512 EP have children aged less than one year. In view of the above, it cannot be said that the respondents acted arbitrarily and with a mala fide intention in transferring the appellant. 22. One other ground advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant is that the transfer of the appellant is contrary to the transfer guidelines and when the ROC at Kolkata has not yet started functioning, transferring him to the said place, at this juncture, is unwarranted. In so far as the transfer guidelines are concerned, it is to be noted that the appellant is an employee of Coast Guard, which is a wing of the armed force. A member of the armed force is entrusted with the responsibility of ensuring the safety and security of the Maritime Zones of India. In addition, the responsibility of ensuring coastal security of 7200 Kms long coast line lies with the ICG post 26/11 and the ICG also provides Search and Rescue (SAR) cover to all marines within the Indian Search and Rescue Region (ISRR) which extends upto 4.6 Million Sq. Km. As the appellant is an experienced officer in Remote Operational Station duties, having served earlier in Kochi and Vizag, the authorities felt that his services are required for protecting the coast line. Further, Rule 13 (1) of the Coast Guard (Conditions of Service) Rules, 1986, categorically states that all Enrolled Personnel are liable for transfer within their service. Therefore, the argument that the transfer was in violation of the transfer guidelines is not correct. 23. Further, Rule 13 (1) of the Coast Guard (Conditions of Service) Rules, 1986, categorically states that all Enrolled Personnel are liable for transfer within their service. Therefore, the argument that the transfer was in violation of the transfer guidelines is not correct. 23. Having regard to all the above circumstances and in the absence of any material to show that this transfer was effected with a mala fide intention or motive, we are of the view that the act of the authorities in transferring the appellant to Kolkata cannot be found fault with. Accordingly, the Writ Appeal is dismissed. No costs. As a sequel, all the pending miscellaneous applications shall stand closed.