Research › Search › Judgment

Manipur High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 90 (MAN)

Thanglemsang Khongsai v. Union of India

2022-05-26

M.V.MURALIDARAN

body2022
JUDGMENT 1. Calling in question the transfer order dated 20.9.2021 and the consequential orders, viz., the movement order dated 22.10.2021 and the signal order dated 25.10.2021, the petitioner has filed this writ petition. To elaborate, the order dated 20.9.2021 is an order of transfer, transferring the petitioner from 86 Bn to 27 BN. The communication dated 22.10.2021 is an inter-departmental communication directing the authority concerned to do the needful to enable the petitioner proceed on transfer to 27 BN. By order dated 25.10.2021, the respondent authorities rejected the request of the petitioner to consider posting him at GC Imphal or any Imphal based offices on compassionate medical ground. 2. The pivotal contention of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner is that the transfer order and the posting order have been issued in contravention of the restrictions as laid down in Guideline no.22.4 for the medical categorization P-3 vide the Standing Order No.04/2008, dated 15.12.2008. 3. The next plank of the argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner was transferred and posted to the 86 Bn only in the year 2016 and inasmuch as he has not completed the zonal tenure of 14 years under the North East Zone and Sector Tenure of 10 years under the M & N Sector as prescribed under Para No.4(ix) of the Standing Order No.07/2015, he ought not to have been transferred. That apart, the respondent authorities are empowered to grant relaxation of one year in view of Para No.4(xvi)(b)(iv) and (viii) of the Standing Order No.07/2015, considering the physical health of the petitioner, but the respondents, being hell-bent, have effected transfer of the petitioner. 4. Per contra, it is the submission of the learned Senior Panel Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents that the petitioner was posted at 86 Bn, Impal with effect from 25.10.2016. According to Para 4(viii) of the Standing Order No.07/2015, the normal tenure in field station is of four years and since the petitioner completed his normal tenure in 86 Bn, his nomination was forwarded and thereupon he was posted to 27 Bn vide proceedings dated 20.9.2021. 5. The contention of the learned Senior Panel Counsel appearing for the respondents is that there was no violation of Guideline No.22.4 of the Standing Order No.04/2008, dated 15.12.2008, as the petitioner has been performing only light duty. 6. 5. The contention of the learned Senior Panel Counsel appearing for the respondents is that there was no violation of Guideline No.22.4 of the Standing Order No.04/2008, dated 15.12.2008, as the petitioner has been performing only light duty. 6. The next contention of the learned Senior Panel Counsel is that the petitioner had been examined by the Medical Officer of the 86 Bn and it was opined that the petitioner had no impairment of voice and light duty was advised to be allotted to him. Accordingly, the respondents had only allotted light duty at the transferred place. 7. Heard learned counsel on either side and perused the documents available on record. 8. The only plea of the petitioner is that while effecting his transfer, the respondent authorities had violated Guideline No.22.4 for the medical categorization P-3 vide the Standing Order No.04/2008, dated 15.12.2008 and Para Nos.4(viii), (ix), (xvi) (b) (iv) & (viii) of the Standing Order No.07/2015. To analyze the said argument, the relevant paragraphs are extracted herein under: 22.4. 'P' Factor (Physical Capacity): This factor shall cover to describe in details about the physical capacity, strength, endurance, mobility, agility and activity of a person, which might be restricted by Medical/surgical conditions and those which are not covered under other factors. Concessions are embedded as a function of age under this factor, since stamina and endurance do decrease with ageing process without any obvious pathology being visible. Numerical Grading Functional Capacity Employability Limitations P-3 Has major disablement with limited physical capacity and stamina Fit for sedentary duties not involving undue stress. May have restricted employability as advised 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. (excluding staff, logistics and allied support duties). 04. Eligibility for transfer: NGOs (Executive) personnel will be eligible for static posting subject to vacancy and administrative convenience as per the following conditions: ... (viii) Normal tenure in field station is of 04 years and for hard field area/SOZ, Static and peace stations is 03 years. (ix) A person can serve in a particular Range/Sector for maximum 10 years and in a particular Zone for 14 years. (viii) Normal tenure in field station is of 04 years and for hard field area/SOZ, Static and peace stations is 03 years. (ix) A person can serve in a particular Range/Sector for maximum 10 years and in a particular Zone for 14 years. It is compulsory for a NGO to serve in a Zone other than his Home Zone for a period of 14 years at least once in his full service. ... (xvi) However, the eligibility conditions as laid down above may be relaxed by one year in very deserving cases by Sector IGP in the following circumstances:- (a) .... (b) Transfer on medical grounds may be considered on merit in case one's spouse or child suffering from any of the following disease:- i. Cancer ii. Paralytic Stroke iii. Renal failure iv. Coronary artery disease, Thalassaemia v. Parkinson's disease. vi. Motor-neuron disease vii. Infertility viii. Any other critical/serious disease if recommended by the board of medical officers/Composite Hospitals. 9. In the case on hand, it is not in dispute that the petitioner was transferred to the 86 Bn, Imphal on 25.10.2016. Therefore, admittedly, he had served his normal tenure in 86 Bn of CRPF. Paragraph 4(ix) of the Standing Order lays down the maximum tenure in a particular Sector/Zone during the entire service period and it not continuous period. 10. Coming to violation of Para 22.4 of the Standing Order No.04/2008, it only states that when an employee has major disablement with limited physical capacity and stamina, he may be allotted restricted employability as advised by the medical authorities such as (i) to avoid places with high humidity level 75% round the year; (ii) have access to specialist services nearby; (iii) to avoid driving/handling of weapons near water, fire or heavy machinery; (iv) restricting physical excess, work in desert/snow bound areas, etc.; and (v) restricting active participation in hostilities, counter insurgency operations etc. (excluding staff, logistics and allied support duties). 11. Admittedly, the petitioner was examined by the Medical Officer of 86 Bn and the authorities were advised to post him on light duty. It is not the case of the petitioner that he had been allotted heavy duty. The respondent authorities had paid heed to the opinion of the Medical Officer and allotted the petitioner only light duty. 11. Admittedly, the petitioner was examined by the Medical Officer of 86 Bn and the authorities were advised to post him on light duty. It is not the case of the petitioner that he had been allotted heavy duty. The respondent authorities had paid heed to the opinion of the Medical Officer and allotted the petitioner only light duty. Therefore, it does not lie in the mouth of the petitioner that the transfer is in violation of the Standing Orders. 12. It is the specific case of the respondents that they had transferred the petitioner to 27 Bn, CRPF, which is located in Delhi and where advanced medical facilities are available. It is also not in dispute that the petitioner was all along performing light duties without the help of any attender and the assigned task given to him was duly completed, despite his medical category. 13. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Shilpi Bose v. State of Bihar, 1991 Supp (2) SCC 659 had emphatically held that a government servant holding a transferable post has no vested right to remain posted at one place or other, and he is liable to be transferred from one place to another. It was further observed that even if a transfer order is passed in violation of executive instructions or orders, the courts ordinarily should not interfere with the order, as such interference would result in complete chaos in the administration, which would not conducive to public interest. 14. Admittedly, the order of transfer does not adversely affect the status or emoluments or seniority of the petitioner. The petitioner has no vested right to get a posting at a place of his choice. It is for the respondent authorities to determine at which place and for how long the services of a particular employee are required. The transfer order has been passed considering the administrative exigency and not arbitrarily or for extraneous consideration or for victimization of the petitioner. 15. In fine, this Court finds no violation of any Standing Orders. The transfer has been effected in tune with the Standing Orders and is also supported by the opinion of the Medical Officer. The petitioner had only been allotted light duty work and that too at the place which has better medical facilities. For the foregoing reasons, finding no merits, the writ petition is dismissed. There will be no order as to costs.