IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF JULY 2017 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE RAGHVENDRA S. CHAUHAN WRIT PETITION No.6498/2017 (S-TR) BETWEEN :
SMT. S. SHIVAMMA W/O. LATE B. H. PUTTASWAMY, AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS, HAVING CISF NO 902291034, WORKING AS HEAD CONSTABLE AT CISF UNIT, No.B-3, OLD BLOCK, 14TH ‘A’ MAIN ROAD, HAL 2ND STAGE, INDIRANAGAR, BENGALURU-17. ... PETITIONER (BY SRI PRASHANTH H. S., ADV.) AND:
1. UNION OF INDIA BY THE MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS, NORTH BLOCK, CENTRAL SECRETARIAT, NEW DELHI – 110001.
2. OFFICE OF THE SENIOR COMMANDANT CISF UNIT, ISAC, BENGALURU-560017, REPRESENTED BY ITS ASSISTANT COMMANDANT.
3. THE INSPECTOR GENERAL CISF (SS) HEADQUARTERS, CHENNAI – 600090. ... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI PRABHULING K. NAVADGI, ADDITIONAL SOLICITOR GENERAL A/W SRI K. S. BHEEMAIAH, ADV.) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE MOVEMENT ORDER DATED 17.1.2017 PASSED BY RESPONDENT NO.2 VIDE ANNEXURE-A AND DIRECT THE RESPONDENTS TO KEEP THE PETITIONER AT BENGALURU ITSELF UNTIL HER SON COMPLETES HIS EDUCATION AT BMS COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING, AT BENGALURU.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR FINAL DISPOSAL THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING :
O R D E R The petitioner, Smt. S. Shivamma, has challenged the Movement order dated 17.01.2017, issued by the second respondent, whereby she has been transferred from CISF Unit, ISAC, Bengaluru, to BPCL, Cochin.
2. Briefly the facts of the case are that on 10.05.1990, the petitioner had joined the Central Industrial Security Force (“CISF”, for short). On 01.06.2012, she was transferred to ISAC in Bengaluru. She has been working in Bengaluru ever since 2012. However, on 31.05.2016, a Movement order was issued transferring her from ISAC, Bengaluru, to BPCL, Cochin. Since she had certain family problems, she requested the respondents to defer her transfer to Cochin by three months. During her stay in Bengaluru, on 17.06.2016, she met with a severe accident on her way to discharge her duties. Therefore, from 17.06.2016, the petitioner has been on medical aid. However, by order dated 17.01.2017, she has been transferred to Cochin. Therefore, the present writ petition before this Court.
3. The learned counsel for petitioner submits that the petitioner has onerous family responsibilities as she had lost her husband in 1997. Therefore, she has to look after her son Mr. P. Sandeep Kumar who is studying in a college in Bengaluru, and look after her own mother who is an old woman suffering from various age-old ailments. Further, if the petitioner were transferred to Cochin, she would not have any male member in her family. Yet, she would have to look after her ailing mother. Therefore, the learned counsel has prayed that the movement order should be interfered with by this Court.
4. During the pendency of this writ petition, the petitioner had again submitted a representation, bringing her familial difficulties to the notice of the respondents.
However, her representation has been rejected by the respondents by order dated 06.03.2017.
5. On 14.07.2017, the learned counsel for respondents tried to justify the rejection order mentioned above, However, this Court felt that this is a case of extreme hardship. Therefore, by order dated 14.07.2017, this Court directed Mr. Anand Mohan, IPS, Inspector General, CISF, South Sector, Head Quarters, Chennai, to be present before this Court. Consequently, Mr. Anand Mohan appeared before this Court on 17.07.2017. This Court pointed out the grave hardship being faced by the petitioner, as she is not only a widow, but also has the responsibility of educating her son, and is also saddled with a mother who is paralysed. Mr. Anand Mohan assured this Court that he will examine the possibility if the petitioner could be adjusted near Bengaluru, although it is a tough task for him. This Court appreciated the spirit of understanding shown by Mr. Anand Mohan.
6. Today, Mr. Prabhuling K. Navadagi, the Additional Solicitor General for the respondents, has submitted a letter sent by the Senior Commandant, CISF Unit, ISAC, Bengaluru, wherein it has been informed that two vacancies do exist, namely at CISF Unit, Master Control Facility at Hassan, and another vacancy at CISF Unit, NTPC, Kudgi.
7. The learned counsel for petitioner submits that the petitioner would be willing to join her duties at CISF Unit, MCF, Hassan.
8. Therefore, the respondents are directed to transfer the petitioner from CISF Unit, Bengaluru to CISF Unit, MCF at Hassan. However, it is made amply clear that this order is being passed looking to the peculiar, and overwhelming hardship of the petitioner. But the order would not form a precedent for others to claim the same relief from this Court.
9. This Court records its appreciation for the sensitivity and spirit shown by Mr. Anand Mohan, IPS, Inspector General, CISF, South Sector, Head Quarters, Chennai.
10. With these directions, the petition stands disposed of. Consequently, the application for amendment of the writ petition (I.A.-2/2017) also stands disposed of.
Np/-
Sd/- JUDGE