IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 1ST DAY OF APRIL, 2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE R DEVDAS WRIT PETITION NO.31290/2018 (S-TR) BETWEEN SRI B B CHALUVARAJAN S/O B.S.BHASHYACHAR, AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS, (FORCE NO.025050072) G C CRPF, TARALU, YELAHANKA, BANGALORE-560064. (BY SRI NARENDRA S, ADVOCATE) AND 1. THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE CRPF, C G O COMPLEX, LODI ROAD, NEW DELHI-110024.
2. THE INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE CRPF, C G O COMPLEX, LODI ROAD, NEW DELHI-110024 3. THE ADDITIONAL DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE CRPF, SOUTH ZONE, HYDERABAD-500078.
4. THE INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE CRPF, KARNATAKA KERALA SECTOR, ... PETITIONER YELAHANKA BENGALURU-64.
5. THE DEPUTY INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE CRPF, TARALU, YELAHANKA BENGALURU-64.
(BY SRI K S BHEEMAIAH, CGS FOR R1 TO R5) ... RESPONDENTS THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED THE SUMMER CHAIN TRANSFER ORDER OF R- 5 AS PER THE TRANSFER ORDER DATED 4.7.2018 VIDE ANNEX- Q PASSED BY R-5 AS PER PETITIONER CONSENT AND ETC.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER R.DEVDAS J., (ORAL):
The petitioner was appointed as Constable (general duty) in the Central Reserve Police Force, in the year 2002 in Chattisgarh. In 2013, the petitioner was transferred from Manipur to Yelahanka, Bengaluru.
2. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the transfer of the petitioner to Yelahanka, Bengaluru, was at his request, since the first child which was born on 21.02.2011 is suffering from Trisimy 21 (Down Syndrome) disease since birth and she is unable to speak or hear properly. The child is deaf and dumb and is undergoing treatment at NIMHANS, Bengaluru and Gupta’s Speech and Hearing Clinic, which is a specialized Clinic for speech and hearing.
3. On 11.06.2017, the petitioner was issued with a transfer order, transferring him to 14th Battalion J&K. The petitioner made a representation dated 13.06.2017 bringing to the notice of the respondent-authorities the difficulties that he is facing and requested a recall of the transfer order. Subsequently, the petitioner approached this Court in W.P.No.33203/2017. During the course of the proceedings, the transfer order dated 11.06.2017 was withdrawn by the respondents and therefore, a memo was filed before this Court and on 13.03.2018, the petition was dismissed as having become infructuous.
4. The respondents have once again issued an order of transfer dated 04.07.2018 at Annexure ‘Q’, proposing to transfer the petitioner to 67th Battalion, Shillong, Meghalaya.
Therefore, the petitioner is before this Court seeking quashment of the transfer order.
5. During the course of the proceedings, this Court had directed the respondents to consider the request made by the petitioner that he may be permitted to continue at Bangalore for a period of two years in the light of the advise of the Doctor that if the child is continued with treatment for a minimum period of two years, substantial improvement can be made in the health condition of the child.
6. The learned Counsel for the respondents, after securing instructions, would submit that the Group Centre, CRPF Taralu, Bangalore is shifted to Chandauli at Uttar Pradesh and the administrative control over the petitioner now rests with the DIG, Group Centre, CRPF, Chandauli and further with the IGP, CRPF Central Sector, Lucknow (Uttar Pradesh).
7. Learned Counsel for the respondents further submits that it has been instructed that the requirement of the petitioner at the place of transfer is genuine and in that regard, to enable the treatment of the child to continue without any impediment, the respondents are ready and willing to continue to provide the Quarters for the family at Bengaluru, while the petitioner can travel to the transferred place. It is also submitted that the respondents would render all assistance to the family.
8. Heard the learned Counsels and perused the writ papers. The learned Counsel for the petitioner has drawn the attention of this Court to several of the Office Memorandums issued by the Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions, Department of Personnel and Training, New Delhi. One such Office Memorandum dated 18.02.2000 would provide that after examining the demands and requests made by the parents of the children suffering from hearing impairment or multiple disability, considering that the facilities for medical care and education of children when hearing impairment or multiple disability may not be available at all Stations, such requests from the parents of a child suffering from hearing impairment or multiple disability, may as far as possible, be considered sympathetically. Where, however, this may not be possible, efforts may be made to accommodate such a Government servant in the same State to the extent possible.
9. At this stage, the learned Counsel for the petitioner comes forward stating that the petitioner is prepared to give an undertaking before this Court that he would request for retaining the petitioner at Bengaluru, only for a period of two years and he is ready and willing to go to any place in India after the period of two years.
10. Learned Counsel submits that this is a genuine request made by the petitioner keeping in mind the medical condition of the child coupled with the fact that there are two children and the mother will not be able to take care of both the children if the petitioner goes away to any other place, even if the Quarters is provided to the mother and children at Bengaluru.
11. In the light of the above, this Court is of the opinion that while recording the undertaking given by the petitioner, the interest of justice will be sub-served if the undertaking is recorded and the respondents would permit the petitioner to continue at Bengaluru for a period of two years from the date of this order and thereafter, the respondents may transfer the petitioner to any other place of their choice. This order, shall, however, not be treated as a precedent.
12. The petition is accordingly allowed and the impugned transfer order dated 04.07.2018 is hereby quashed and set aside. The petitioner shall remain bound to the undertaking given before this Court and the respondents may proceed to implement the undertaking given by the petitioner before this Court, after two years from today.
JT/-
SD/- JUDGE