K.K. Varkey vs Union Of India

Mohammed Nias C.P.,J

The above writ appeal is filed aggrieved by the dismissal of the writ petition challenging the transfer of the petitioner from CISF Unit, Kochi to CISF Unit, NLC, Neyveli.

The appellant/writ petitioner contended before the learned Single Judge that, by Ext.P10 order, his claim for retention at Kochi Station was rejected while confirming the order of transfer to CISF Unit, NLC Neyveli. The contention of the petitioner is that he is due to retire from service in 9 months' time and therefore entitled to continue in the present station as similarly situated persons have been allowed to do so.

The learned DSGI appearing for the respondents submitted that all the contentions raised by the petitioner has been duly considered while passing Ext.P10 order and no interference is called for.

The learned Single Judge who considered the matter relied on the judgment of this Court in Sreekumar S. v. Union of India [2014 (4) KHC 621] and held that an employee cannot rely on the guidelines to contend that he should be retained in a particular station or be posted to a station of his choice. In the absence of any allegation raised by the respondents in the writ petition, Ext.P10 order was not interfered with and the writ petition dismissed.

Before us, the learned counsel for the petitioner reiterated the contention raised in the writ petition and submitted that he has only a few months to retire and therefore, his case may be considered sympathetically. We had directed the learned DSGI to get instructions and accordingly, the Group Commander of CISF who was present in Court on 01.09.2022 submitted before us that there has been 15 punishments imposed on the appellant in the past and therefore, the respondents have difficulty in considering him for posting in any of the sensitive stations of the CISF in Kerala. He had also requested to grant time to enable him to file an affidavit showing the details of the punishments stated to have been imposed on the appellant. Accordingly, on behalf of the respondents filed the affidavit on 28.07.2022 wherein the entire details of the punishment have been narrated. There is no reply affidavit filed controverting the facts in the said affidavit. In the absence of anything to suggest that any of the averments made in the affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents is not accurate, we do not think that we will be justified in showing any indulgence to the appellant. The appellant being a member of the uniform force in such circumstances had to obey the order of transfer issued by the respondents. The learned counsel for the appellant also made a request before us to direct the respondents to consider a case on temporary transfer to Kochi retaining his lien at Neyveli for a few months before his retirement. We are not in a position to give any such direction in this case. It will be open for the appellant to make such a request, if the same is permissible under law.

Subject to the above, this writ appeal is dismissed.