GURNAM SINGH Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. B. Deb Nath, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. K. Meruno, learned Sr. Central Govt. Standing Counsel for the respondents.

(2.) This petition relates to the transfer of the petitioner vide order dated 9th June, 2001, Annexure-2 to the writ petition. This court by order dated 28.4.2001 in Misc. Application No. 54 (K) 2001 has fixed this case for hearing on interim relief on 10 .9.2001. When the writ petition was posted before this court on 10.9.2001, the respondents have filed counter affidavit. On that date both the learned counsels submitted that instead of hearing the prayer for interim stay, the entire main petition itself can be disposed of. On the consent of the parties this writ petition is heard on merits at the notice motion stage. The case in short compass is that the petitioner by impugned order dated 9.7.2001 was transferred from Rangapahar Headquarter 13 7 Works Engineer to C.E. HQ Central Command Lucknow by transfer order at Annexure-2 to the writ petition. The said transfer order was served on the petitioner soon after his return from leave when he came backto Rangapahar on 6.8.2001. The main contention of the petitioner in this writ petition is that according to the revised policy, Annexure-4 to this writ petition, the transfer of the petitioner was violative of that policy, for according to the petitioner he is entitled to be retained in the same post for a period of 3 to 4 years, according to this policy. Another point raised by the petitioner is that his son who is a B.A. 2nd year student and studying in Dimapur Govt. College is in the midst of his studies and it would be very difficult for the petitioner to leave his son alone in Rangapahar as he is yet to complete his studies for the B.A. Course. The next contention of the petitioner is that inspite of his representation regarding his transfer, the respondents have not considered his representation till the filing of this writ petition. Being highly aggrieved, the petitioner has approached this court for a writ of mandamus to quash the said impugned transfer order and to direct the respondents not to transfer the petitioner.

(3.) In the instant writ petition the petitioner has averred that the transfer was malafide and that it is violative of aforesaid guidelines. The petitioner had laid emphasis on the study of his son as apparent from the statement in the writ petition that his son would complete his B.A. course in June, 2003 and in the event of his transfer, the petitioner's son will be left without proper care and that his further studies shall be severely affected. More so, when the said son of the petitioner is contemplating of joining the army and doing his training in NCC in the college.