Research › Search › Judgment

Manipur High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 45 (MAN)

Khaidem Kullabidhu Singh v. Union of India

2022-04-07

AHANTHEM BIMOL SINGH

body2022
JUDGMENT 1. The present writ petition had been filed assailing the orders dated 20.09.2021 effecting the transfer and posting of the petitioner from 86 Bn. CRPF at Keithelmanbi, Manipur to 26 Bn. CRPF at Bokaro, Jharkhan and order dated 25.10.2021 rejecting the representation submitted by the petitioner against his transfer and posting, coupled with a prayer for directing the respondents to allow the petitioner to remain at 86 Bn. CRPF. 2. Heard Mr. M. Devananda, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr. Kh. Samarjit, learned ASG appearing for the respondents. In assailing the aforesaid orders, Mr. M. Devananda submitted that while the petitioner was serving in the 86 Bn., he was diagnosed as suffering from Cardiovascular disease and on the advice of the Doctors of the Composite Hospital, Imphal, the petitioner was admitted to the Sky Hospital and Research Centre, Imphal for treatment on 30.10.2020 and on 31.10.2020 open heart surgery was conducted and the petitioner is a post Double Valve Replacement (DVR) patient and treatment is going on. Due to his illness and treatment, the petitioner was diagnosed as P-3 (t-24) during annual medical examination, 2021 and the Doctors at the Composite Hospital, Imphal gave the advice that the petitioner is medically unfit to do hard labour work because of his heart problem. 3. It has been submitted by the learned counsel that under Standing Order No. 04/2008 dated 15.12.2008, instructions for medical examination and classification of personnel in Central Para-military Forces are laid down. In Para 22.4 of the said Standing Order No. 04/2008, guidelines for classification of the physical capacity of the personnel in Central Para-military Forces are laid down and that the functional capacity of employability limitation of a personnel categorised as P-3 has been described as having major disablement with limited physical capacity and stamina and that the personnel is fit for sedentary duties not involving undue stress and may have restricted employability as advice by medical authorities such as :- (a) to avoid places with high humidity level 75 % round the year, (b) have access to specialist services nearby, (c) to avoid driving/handling of weapons near water, fire or heavy machinery, (d) restricting physical excess, work in desert/snow bound areas, etc., (e) restricting active participation in hostilities, counter insurgency operations etc. 4. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that as the petitioner has been categorised as P-3 (T-24), the authorities have to take into consideration and follow the guidelines laid down in Para 22.4 of the aforesaid Standing Order No. 04/2008 and the guidelines for transfer and posting laid down in Para 04 (xvi) (b) (iv) of the Standing Order No. 07/2015 dated 04.08.2015 while effecting the transfer and posting of the present petitioner. The learned counsel also submitted that as the transfer and posting of the petitioner to 26 Bn. was made without taking into consideration the delicate physical health condition of the petitioner and in violation of the restrictions as laid down in Para 22.4 of the Standing Order No. 04/2008 and the policy under Para 04 (xvi) (b) (iv) of the Standing Order No. 09/2015, the impugned orders are liable to be quashed and set aside. 5. It may be noted here that in the Standing Order No. 07/2015 dated 04.08.2015, it is provided under Para 04 (vii) that normal tenure in field station is of 4 (four) years and for hard/field areas/SOZ, static and peace station is 3 (three) years and under Para 04 (xvi) (b) (iv), it is provided that the eligibility condition as laid down may be relaxed by 1 (one) year in very deserving cases by Sector IGP in the circumstances, inter-alia, transfer on medical grounds may be considered on merit in cases one's spouse or child is suffering from any of the diseases including Coronary Artery disease, Thalassaemia, etc. 6. Mr. M. Devananda submitted that the petitioner submitted a representation dated 29.09.2021 to the competent authorities against the impugned transfer order, however, the said representation was rejected by the authorities by an order dated 25.10.2021 without giving any reason and without taking into consideration the health condition of the petitioner and the guidelines and policy for transfer and posting of personnel having medical problems as laid down in the aforesaid Standing Order No. 04/2008 and Standing Order No. 07/2015 and accordingly, the impugned orders deserves to be quashed and set aside. 7. 7. The learned counsel for the petitioner also submitted that the authorities could have considered the case of the petitioner for relaxation of his transfer for 1 (one) year in terms of the guidelines/policy laid down under Para 4 (xvi) (b) (iv) considering the delicate physical health condition of the petitioner, however, the authorities adamantly and oblivious of the guidelines laid down in the aforesaid Standing Order issued the impugned transfer order and rejected his representation without proper application of mind and without giving any reason in a very arbitrary and illegal manner and as such, the impugned orders are liable to be quashed and set aside. 8. Mr. Kh. Samarjit, learned ASG appearing for the respondents submitted that the petitioner was posted at 32 Bn. CRPF at Loktak, Manipur w.e.f. 16.12.2009 till 21.11.2016 and thereafter, he was posted at 86 Bn. CRPF, Imphal w.e.f. 25.11.2016 till date and as such, the petitioner had been posted continuously at Manipur, which is his Home State, for more than 12 (twelve) years and at the same station, i.e., 86 Bn. continuously for more than 5 (five) years. The learned ASG submitted that as the petitioner had been posted continuously for more than 5 (five) years in the same station, which is in excess of 2 (two) years of the normal tenure, the petitioner is not at all entitled to avail the extension of 1 (one) year as provided under Para 04 (xvi) (b) (iv) of the Standing Order No. 07/2015. The learned ASG further submitted that the petitioner never raised the issue of extension of his posting at 86 Bn. for 1 (one) more year in his representation submitted to the authorities and accordingly, there is no question of non consideration of his representation in terms of the guidelines laid down in the Standing order No. 07/2015 and that the authorities have rejected his representation after taking into consideration all relevant factors including the health condition of the petitioner. 9. The learned ASG also submitted that the impugned transfer order was issued during Summer Chain transfer-2021 as a policy matter and such orders have been issued by the authorities after taking into consideration all aspects like vacancy/exigency of operational commitment, tenure of individual, etc. 9. The learned ASG also submitted that the impugned transfer order was issued during Summer Chain transfer-2021 as a policy matter and such orders have been issued by the authorities after taking into consideration all aspects like vacancy/exigency of operational commitment, tenure of individual, etc. It has further been submitted that a Government servant holding a transferrable post has no vested right to remain posted at particular place for more than prescribed tenure and that he is liable to be transferred from one place to another and no Government servant or employee has the right for being posted at any particular place of his choice for more than the prescribed tenure and that it will be very difficult for the CRPF to post a person in a particular station as per his choice for a long time as it will create administrative difficulties to adjust other eligible personnel who also desire or are eligible for home/choice posting as per their turn/eligibility. In view of the above, it has been submitted by the learned ASG that there is no merit in the contention advanced by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the present writ petition deserves to be dismissed as being devoit of merit. 10. With regard to the health condition of the petitioner, it has been submitted by the learned ASG that on the directions of this Court, the petitioner was subjected to medical check-up twice, one by the Doctors of the Composite Hospital, Imphal and another by a Heart Specialist of RIMS Hospital and the Doctors gave the finding that the petitioner is fit to travel by air/train/road and accordingly, it has been submitted that there is no substance in the contention raised on behalf of the petitioner that the petitioner is not fit for travel to join his new place of posting. The learned ASG submitted that the petitioner has availed more than 5 (five) years of tenure in the 86 Bn. against the normal tenure of 3 (three) years and that the competent authorities after taking into consideration the health condition of the petitioner transferred the petitioner to 26 Bn. CRPF at Bokaro, Jharkhand, where he will be utilised on a sedentary type of duties just like in his posting at Imphal and that the petitioner will avail better medical facilities at his new place of posting. CRPF at Bokaro, Jharkhand, where he will be utilised on a sedentary type of duties just like in his posting at Imphal and that the petitioner will avail better medical facilities at his new place of posting. The learned ASG lastly submitted that there is no merit in the present writ petition and it deserves to be dismissed. 11. After hearing the rival submissions of the learned counsel appearing for the parties and on careful perusal of the record of the present case, it is seen that admittedly the petitioner was posted at 32 Bn. CRPF, Loktak, Manipur w.e.f. 16.12.2019 till 21.11.2016 and thereafter, he was posted at 86 Bn. CRPF, Imphal w.e.f. 25.11.2016 and he has been continuing to serve at the 86 Bn. CRPF till today for more than 5 (five) years. This Court also found that the authorities allowed the petitioner to remain posted at 86 Bn. CRPF, Imphal for more than 5 (five) years as against a normal tenure of 3/4 years as provided under the Standing Order No. 07/2015 and that the petitioner did not mention anything in his representation dated 29.09.2021 submitted to the Commandant 86 Bn. CRPF, Lamphelpat, Imphal, Manipur for extension of the tenure of his posting at 86 Bn. as provided under Para 04 (xvi)(b)(iv) of the Standing Order No. 07/2015. Taking into consideration the above undisputed facts, this Court did not find any wrongful act or arbitrariness on the part of the respondent in issuing the impugned orders and this Court did not find any substance in the arguments advanced by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. 12. So far as the health condition of the petitioner is concerned, it is recorded that the petitioner was physically examined by 2 (two) separate doctors, one of whom is a specialist, on the direction given by this Court and both the said 2 (two) doctors who have examined the petitioner gave their advice that the petitioner is fit for travel by air/train/road and in view of the medical advice given by the competent doctors, this Court cannot also agree with the submission advanced on behalf of the petitioner that he is not in a position to join his new place of posting due to his health condition. Moreover, the respondents have specifically stated in their counter affidavit that on his posting at 26 Bn. Moreover, the respondents have specifically stated in their counter affidavit that on his posting at 26 Bn. CRPF at Bokaro, Jharkhand, the petitioner will be utilised on a sedentary type of duties just like in his place of posting at Imphal and that the petitioner will avail better medical facilities at his new place of posting. In view of such statement made by the respondents, this Court did not find any ground or reason for interfering with the impugned orders. In the result, the present writ petition is hereby dismissed as being devoid of merit, however, without any costs. 13. Earlier interim order stands vacated.