IRLA No 5960 Second In Command Neraj Kumar Singh vs Union Of India And 4 Ors

Heard Mr. R. Mazumdar, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Mr. K. Gogoi, learned CGC appearing for the respondents.

By filing this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of the India, the petitioner has assailed the transfer order under SIGNAL/SELO

no.T.IX-6/2021(SCT)-Pers-DA.3 dated 26.07.2021, in so far as the petitioner is concerned whose name appeared at Sl. No.103 of the said list,

thereby transferring him from 142 Bn, CRPF to 219 Bn, CRPF. It is submitted that the petitioner has served in various location for last 23 years. After

23 years of service, the petitioner had made a first request for posting him in his home State on the ground that his daughter was studying in Class-X.

Referring to the transfer policy of officers vide Standing Order No.7/2014, it is submitted that the said standing order provides for home posting

after 20 years of service and it is submitted that while in the case of others were considered by giving a choice of positing by interfering with the

transfer order, the case of the petitioner was taken up and rejected.

Aggrieved by order under SELO No.T.IX-5/2021-Pers-DA-3 dated 10.08.2021, the present writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of the

Constitution of India. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the transfer policy of the CRPF officers bearing Standing order

no.7/2014 is not merely a guideline but it is a Standing Order by the Director General of CRPF, which is required to be followed scrupulously. It is

submitted that there are various case laws calling for non-interference with the order of transfer and it is submitted that those decisions would not be

applicable in the present case in hand as none of those cases were referable to the benefit which were included in and/or flowing from the Standing

orders issued from time to time by the competent authority. Reference is also made to SELO No. No.T.IX-6/2021-Pers-DA-3 dated 17.08.2021 by

which as many as 13 transfer orders were cancelled and accordingly, it is submitted that the respondent authorities are adopting pick and choose

policy without giving effect to the Standing Order No.7/2014 and that while rejecting the prayer for home posting of the petitioner, the case of others

were considered. It is submitted that several personnel whose transfer orders were cancelled had served less number of years than the petitioner

outside the home State.

The learned CGC opposes the prayer for any interim relief at this stage and in this regard the following cases have been relied upon:

(1) Union of India Vs. S.L. Abbas, (1993) 4 SCC 357,

(2) Major General J.K. Bansal Vs. Union of India, (2005) 7 SSC 227,

(3) Union of India Vs. Deepak Niranjan nath Pandit, Manu/SC/0149/2020,

(4) S.C. Saxena Vs. Union of India and others, (2006) 9 SCC 583,

(5) State of Haryana Vs. Kashmir Singh (2016) 13 SCC 306.

Issue notice returnable on 03.09.2021.

As all the respondents are duly represented, requisite additional copies of the writ petition may be furnished to the learned CGC within 2(two) days.

The learned counsel for the petitioner has been able to prima-facie satisfy this Court that despite the order of transfer which is impugned in this writ

petition, the competent authority of the respondents have cancelled/recalled the transfer order for 13 personnel and therefore, the respondents have to

disclose the reasons for exercising their discretion in cancelling the transfer order vide SELO No.T.IX-6/2021-Pers-DA-3 dated 17.08.2021, whereas

the request made by the petitioner is rejected vide SELO No.T.IX-5/2021-Pers-DA-3 dated 10.08.2021 (Annexure-7). Therefore, the respondents are

directed to file an affidavit-in-opposition in the matter. Although the Court is not inclined to interfere with the order of transfer at this stage, it is

provided that the transfer of the petitioner to 219 Bn, CRPF would be subject to further order that may be passed by this Court.

The SELO No.T.IX-6/2021-Pers-DA-3 dated 17.08.2021 as produced by the learned counsel for the petitioner is kept as a part of the record.

The Court is inclined to direct in the interim that notwithstanding the SELO No.T.IX-5/2021-Pers-DA-3 dated 10.08.2021, the Director General of

CRPF (respondent no.2) shall revisit the request of the petitioner dated 28.07.2021 (Annexure-VI to the writ petition) and pass a fresh order thereon.

List the mater on 03.09.2021.