Petitioner is working as a Daftry under the Central Reserve Police Force (CRPF). He joined service as a "Peon" with effect from 15-2-1983 and was promoted as a Daftry with effect from 16-3-1993. It is submitted that he has served in various places such as Imphal, Bhuvaneswar and Hyderabad till 2003. In 2003, the petitioner's wife suffered a massive stroke on the left side of the brain and her right side was paralysed. Consequently, although she was discharged from the hospital after treatment, the medical certificate issued to her would reveal that she requires constant supervision.
2. It is the case of the petitioner that the condition of the wife, as regards her mobility and the requirement of constant supervision, has not changed since. Taking into account the predicament of the petitioner, he was transferred to Pallippuram with effect from 15-10- 2007 and he is continuing as Daftry in Pallippuram since that date. The cause of action for filing the Writ Petition was the service on the petitioner, of Ext. P3 signal message dated 24-3-2013, which indicated that steps were taken to transfer the petitioner to Jammu & Kashmir. Although the petitioner had, taking note of the proposal to transfer him, submitted Ext.P2 representation dated 6-3-2013, no action was forthcoming from the respondents, whereas the aforementioned Ext.P3 message was issued directing transfer of the petitioner to Jammu & Kashmir. In the Writ Petition, Ext.P3 is impugned and the petitioner prays that directions be issued to the 2nd and 3rd respondents to retain the petitioner in the post of Daftry/Constable in Pallippuram on compassionate grounds.
3. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondent wherein the sequence of events leading to the issuance of Ext.P3 signal message has been narrated. It is pointed out that the petitioner had been accommodated, by taking into account his peculiar circumstances, at Pallippuram with effect from 10-10-2007 and, in so far as he has completed more than six years at the home station, there was no justification on the part of the petitioner to insist on further continuation at the same place. It is also pointed out that the petitioner has also been posted in the home zone namely, south zone, for the last 20 years and hence, his request for posting in the south zone also is unreasonable, considering that his retention would cause prejudice to other employees who also seek a posting in the home zone.
4. I have heard Sri. B. Harish Kumar, the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Sri. T.Sanjay, Central Government Standing Counsel for the respondents.
5. On consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case and the submission made across the Bar, I note that, at the time of the admission of the Writ Petition, by an order dated 1-4-2013, the respondents were injuncted from taking further proceedings pursuant to Ext. P3 to transfer the petitioner to Jammu & Kashmir pending disposal of the Writ Petition. The said interim order passed by this Court continues to remain in force.
6. The case of the petitioner is that the condition of his wife is such that, requiring him to move to Jammu Kashmir in connection with his employment would entail untold hardship to him and his family since his wife requires constant medical supervision in connection with her ailment. In Ext. P5, standing orders outlining the transfer policy of ministerial staff /Stenographers/Official language Cadre, there are provisions which deal with the transfer of ministerial cadre employees as also transfer on medical grounds. I note that the transfer on extreme medical grounds will be considered by the respondents on merit, if the official or his immediate family members are suffering from any of the specified diseases including paralytic stroke. In so far as the specific case of the petitioner in the Writ Petition is that his wife had suffered a paralytic stroke in the year 2003 and has not completely recovered from the same till date and requires constant supervision, I feel that it would be the interest of justice that the respondents consider the case of the petitioner for retention at Pallippuram, sympathetically, with due regard to the guidelines governing transfer. Although the transfer of employees is within the realm of discretion of the employer, and this Court would not normally interfere with the orders of transfer in proceedings Article 226 of the Constitution of India, in the absence of any demonstrated violation of statutory guidelines or in the absence of established malafides, I feel that this is a case where the respondents can consider the peculiar circumstances of the petitioner and try and accommodate him at some station within the south zone, if not at Pallippuram itself. In order to enable the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner afresh, I quash Ext. P3 order and direct the respondents to consider Ext. P2 representation of the petitioner in the light of the medical certificates produced by the petitioner to show the current medical state of his wife. The respondents shall pass orders thereon as expeditiously as possible.
This Writ Petition is disposed of accordingly.
Sd/- A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR JUDGE ani/ xxx