AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Heard Mr. R. Dutta, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as Mr. A. Roy Barman, learned CGC appearing for the respondents.
By means of this petition, the petitioner has challenged the order of transfer dated 28.07.2017 [Annexure-2 to the writ petition] issued by the competent authority, the respondent No.2.
The petitioner, having received the said transfer order, filed one representation on 05.08.2017 [Annexure-3 to the writ petition] stating inter alia that his father died on 27.12.2017 and his mother is suffering from chronic heart disease. One brother of the petitioner died out of the motor cycle accident and left his family along with his child. The other elder brother is suffering from Cancer who is under treatment at TATA Memorial Hospital, Parel, Mumbai. The petitioner is also suffering from ligament. On medical advised he was operated in the Apollo Hospital, Kolkata. He is not cured. On 13.07.2017, again he fell down from the hill when he was coming down on the road while returning from the ROP duty and got injured again. He had urged the said competent authority to consider his case sympathetically and to allow him to continue in the present place of posting. But when the petitioner filed the writ petition the said representation was not considered at any level. On the contrary, the movement order dated 17.08.2017 [Annexure-4 to the writ petition] was issued.
The respondents have filed the reply and stated that what the petitioner has urged in the writ petition is that he is entitled to get benefit of the policy under No.NR 276 GR 500 dated 02.12.2016 [Annexure-1 to the writ petition]. But such expectation is based on improper interpretation of the said guidelines. The guidelines are for the competent authority to be observed while making the order of postings. Such guidelines were not enforceable.
Mr. A. Roy Barman, learned CGC has fairly submitted that in the guidelines there is a clause that personnel of NE should be given a choice to remain there even after completing 6 years and 8 years if they are willing. Mr. Roy Barman, learned CGC has advanced two pronged submissions viz. (i) the said guidelines is not enforceable and (ii) the petitioner has been allowed a considerable length of posting in this region. In this regard, Mr. Roy Barman, learned CGC has referred to the paragraph 12 of the reply filed by the respondents where it has been stated as under:
"That, with regard to the statement made in Paragraph-7 of the instant Writ Petition it is submitted that, the contention of this paragraphs is not tenable and no any rights of the petitioner have been violated by the respondents as stated in this para. The appointment in CRPF as Constable/GD carries with him the liability to serve anywhere in India or beyond the country, if required and not in any particular state."
It has been also asserted by the respondents that the representation as filed by the petitioner on 05.08.2017 has been disposed of by the competent authority by the order dated 31.08.2017. The records relating to the said order has been placed before this court, wherefrom it appears that the petitioner was earlier posted in the following places:
137-BN PUN (LOC-JALANDHAR) FIELD(S) 24/07/2000 25/08/2001
086-BN ASM (LOC-GUWAHATI) FIELD (H) 25/08/2001 17/04/2002
086-BN JK (LOC- AWANTIPUR) FIELD (H) 17/04/2002 12/04/2005
086-BN TRP (LOC-AGARTALA) FIELD (H) 12/04/2005 12/05/2008
086-BN MNP (LOC-IMPHAL) FIELD (H) 12/05/2008 19/05/2009
124-BN TRP (LOC - SALBAGAN) FIELD (H) 19/05/2009 12/12/2016
071-BN ATT: TRP (LOC - JIRANIYA) FIELD (H) 12/12/2016 31/08/2017
It appears from the said record that the petitioner served in Agartala and nearby Agartala from April 2005 till date and he has completed the tenure. The competent authority has rejected the representation communicating in crux that there is no substance in the representation warranting any reconsideration. However, the respondent No.2 has directed the Commander to withdraw the relieving order till the case is disposed of by the court. While going through the representation filed by the petitioner it appeared before this court that further consideration in respect of difficulty is called for.
In view of this, this writ petition is disposed of with the following direction:
(i) Within 7(seven) days from today, the petitioner shall file a fresh representation with all documents to the Inspector General of Police, CRPF, Tripura Sector, the respondent No.2 through the appropriate channel narrating his difficulties elaborately and
(ii) the respondent No.2 shall give a fresh look into the difficulties of the petitioner and with human touch he would consider the said representation in respect of extending his posting where he is presently posted or any other place nearby or for providing some space to the petitioner so that the petitioner can attend the medical emergencies in the family.
Till the decision is taken in terms of the above, the petitioner shall be allowed to continue in the present place of posting. There shall be no order as to costs.
A copy of the order be furnished to the learned counsel for the parties to enable them act in accordance with this order.