RAJINDER SINGH HUNDAL Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Case taken up through video conferencing.

(2.) Petitioner - Rajinder Singh Hundal, aged about 58 years, posted as Deputy Commandant at Headquarters, SDG BSF, Western Command, Chandigarh has brought the present civil writ petition against respondents - Union of India through its Secretary, Department of Home Affairs, New Delhi as well as against Directorate General, Border Security Force, Ministry of Homed Affairs, New Delhi and Additional Director General, BSF, Western Command, U.T. Chandigarh seeking quashing/setting aside of impugned Transfer/Posting Order dated 24.3.2020 (Annexure P-3), issued by respondent No.2 vide which the petitioner had been transferred from Chandigarh to Anupgarh (Rajasthan), allegedly in violation of letter dated 6.5.2020 since the same was issued particularly keeping in mind the present scenario of pandemic Covid-19 as well as in violation of the Border Security Force (Tenure of Posting and Deputation) Rules, 2000.

(3.) According to the petitioner, he is due to retire on 31.12.2022 and before retiring on attaining the age of superannuation, it is not in the interest of administration (involving unnecessary burden on the public exchequer) to transfer the petitioner to a far away place; there is no administrative exigency to effect transfer of the petitioner; the petitioner was posted as Deputy Commandant in the Border Security Forces at Headquarters SDG(WC), Chandigarh on May, 2017 and now he has been transferred to Anupgarh (Rajasthan) vide order dated 24.3.2020, when he is at the fag end of his retirement; the petitioner has two children i.e. a son studying in 10+2 class and a daughter doing Master of Arts; there is nobody to look after the children except the petitioner, who is their father and natural guardian and in case the transfer order is implemented, the family affairs of the petitioner would be adversely affected; that the petitioner had submitted a representation dated 16.1.2020 to the concerned authorities; his representation was considered but the same did not invite the desired action. Therefore, the petitioner has approached this Court.