SIBY JOSE Vs. DEPUTY INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) TWO issues are involved in these writ petitions, preferred by the very same writ petitioner. The first one is whether the petitioner is entitled to be retained at the station at Pallipuram and whether Ext.P5 transfer order in the first case is liable to be intercepted. The second issue is whether the petitioner is entitled to go on voluntary retirement as a matter of right, with effect from 15.09.2012, which claim stands rejected as per Ext.P8 order dated 12.06.2012 produced in the second case, which according to the petitioner, came to be passed without reckoning the regularized service of the petitioner as given in Ext.P9 order (enabling him to complete the qualifying service of '20 years' for proceeding on voluntary retirement with effect from 15.09.2012).

(2.) THE sequence of events is as follows. The petitioner was appointed as a Sub Inspector and later was continuing as Assistant Commandant elsewhere. After considering his request to have a home posting, he was given a transfer and posted at the station at Pallipuram in Thiruvananthapuram. On completing two years of service at Pallipuram, the petitioner was sought to be transferred out by Ext.P5, shifting him to the field station, Manipur; which came to be challenged by him by filing W.P.(C) No.11515/2012. When the matter came up for consideration before this Court on 21.05.2012, taking note of the submission that the petitioner had already submitted Ext.P9 application for voluntary retirement with effect from 16.09.2012, an interim stay of further proceedings pursuant to Ext.P5 transfer was granted, till the appropriate authority took a decision on Ext.P9.

(3.) THE learned standing counsel for the respondents submits that, there is absolutely no merit or bonafides with regard to the challenge raised against transfer, as the enabling order whereby the petitioner was brought to Pallipuram was on compassionate ground, for just one year, vide Ext.R1(b), taking note of the request made by the petitioner referring the ailments of his child who is stated as suffering from 'Down Syndrome'. Then the petitioner filed an application for extension of time, to be retained at Pallipuram, which was also considered favourably enabling the petitioner to continue for one more year, vide Ext.R1 (c) order dated 04.05.2011. It was thereafter that, the petitioner was sought to be shifted in view of the organizational requirements vide Ext.P5, which hence is not assailable under any circumstance, submits the learned counsel. It is also brought to the notice of this Court that, the hardships and exigency projected by the petitioner have become stale, in so far as the wife and child have left the station and are now residing in Ireland. The petitioner is occupying the quarters, without the family therein, which in fact has necessarily to be alloted to other deserving persons for residing with the family. That apart, the petitioner does not have any vested right to continue at Pallipuram and more so when, the transfer given to the petitioner was clear and categoric, specifying the 'tenure'; which is not under challenge.