WING COMMANDER Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is an Aeronautical Mechanical Engineer, commissioned as Pilot officer in the Air Force in the year 1995. With a distinguished service and promotions, the petitioner is now a Wing Commander having served the nation in Kargil Operation and has served in intelligence unit. It is contended that the petitioner was awarded certificate of "Commendation by the Chief of Air Staff" and has led an unimpeachable career. Unfortunately, the petitioner's son is suffering from a rare genetic disorder known as propionic academia. It is submitted that the petitioner's son though aged about 18 years, has a mental age of a 2 or 3 year old. The child cannot sit without support, his speech is not developed, he cannot walk independently, he is not toilet trained, has difficulty in swallowing food and has poor comprehension. The child is suffering from 100% physical and mental disability.

(2.) The petitioner sought transfer to Bengaluru on the ground of the child's medical condition. Accordingly, the petitioner was posted to Bengaluru area (AFTC), w.e.f. 07.07.2014. The grievance of the petitioner is that the respondents have issued the impugned order of transfer dated 20.07.2020 posting the petitioner at Delhi station of the Indian Air Force.

(3.) Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned order of transfer is in violation of the Official Memorandums dated 06.04.2015 and 08.10.2018, IAF Posting Policy dated 06.04.2015 and IAF Posting Policy dated 07.07.2020. In addition, it is submitted that the transfer would be detrimental to the survival of the petitioner's child in addition to violation of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016, UN Conventions of Rights of Persons with Disabilities. The learned counsel has also drawn the attention of this Court to a decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Anil Kumar Yadav Vs. Military Secretary Branch and Others, in Special Leave to Appeal (C) No.351/2017, which was disposed of on 13.11.2017. It is submitted that the Apex Court has held that in a case involving 100% disability of a child and where treatment could be effectively given only at a particular place, protection is required to be given to parents of such children, without adverting to routine transfers.