Anil Kumar K vs Union Of India

Sathish Ninan, J.

By way of this writ petition, the petitioner challenges Ext.P8 and P11 orders to the extent the petitioner is ordered be transferred to BRBNML NNP SALBONI.

The petitioner was posted to the CISF Unit attached to the BPCL, Kochi on 30.05.2023. While so working, Ext.P8 order of promotion and transfer was issued.

Challenging Ext.P8 to the extent it related to transfer, the petitioner approached this Court in WP(c) No.12212 of 2024. The ground urged was the medical condition of his wife. It was contended that he was attached to the CISF Unit of UIDAI Bangalore and it was on his request for transfer on the medical grounds of his wife that he was granted a transfer to the BPCL, Kochi. The said medical grounds still subsist. Not even one year has elapsed since transfer. There are vacancies available to accommodate the petitioner. It was alleged that Ext.P8 order of transfer was passed without considering the above facts. This Court as per Ext.P9 judgment directed the appropriate authority to consider the petitioner's request for retention in the present station on the aforesaid grounds.

Pursuant to the directions of this Court, the appropriate authority passed Ext.P11 order affirming the orders of transfer. Challenging the same the petitioner had now approached this Court.

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Central Government Counsel appearing for the respondents.

Perusal of Ext.P11 order shows that, but for a narration at paragraph 3 therein, of the grounds urged by the petitioner before this Court which were directed to be considered by the appropriate authority, there is no consideration of the said grounds in the order. Ext.P11 order states that the orders of transfer is necessitated due to the low panel merit of the petitioner. However the medical grounds as stated earlier and based on which the petitioner was granted a transfer to BPCL, Kochi is not considered at all. It is so in spite of the direction of this Court in Ext.P9 judgment. Evidently, the directions of this Court in Ext.P9 judgment has not been complied with. It is for the authority to pass fresh orders on the petitioner’s request in compliance with the directions given in Ext.P9 with specific reference to the grounds raised therein.

Resultantly, Ext.P11 order is quashed. The 2nd respondent or other appropriate authority will re-consider the petitioner's claim and pass fresh orders with regard to the transfer of the petitioner. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has not been relieved from the present place. If the petitioner has not been served with the movement order, he shall be permitted to continue till orders are passed as above. It is made clear that the orders in so far as it relates to promotion remains intact.