Sunith Kumar M.C vs Union Of India

N.Nagaresh, J

The petitioner, who is a Head Constable in the Central Industrial Security Force presently working at Cochin Shipyard Unit under the 5th respondent, is aggrieved by Ext.P1 transfer order. By Ext.P1 transfer order, the petitioner stands transferred from Central Industrial Security Force, Cochin Shipyard Limited Unit to Sivagangai.

The petitioner states that the petitioner is residing in the quarters in Cochin along with his aged and ailing father. The father has medical issues and is receiving medical treatment from Kerala under the Medisep Scheme of the Kerala Government. If the petitioner is transferred to Sivagangai, the petitioner will have to carry his father also along with him, since there is no one else to look after his father and in that case, the petitioner’s father will be denied the benefit under the Medisep Scheme.

The petitioner has produced Exts.P3 and P4 documents to show that the petitioner’s father is undergoing treatment at Lourdes Hospital, Ernakulam since 17.12.2022 for Chronic Liver Disease and Diabetes Mellitus. Ext.P4 would show that the petitioner’s father required continuous treatment and follow up.

Counsel for the petitioner argued that the petitioner’s father is a widower and since he is suffering from various serious diseases, it is highly arbitrary and unjust to transfer the petitioner at this point of time.

The counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is building a house. The construction will be completed within three or four months. In the meanwhile, if the petitioner is forced to go on transfer, the petitioner and his family will be put to untold hardship.

Deputy Solicitor General of India entered appearance on behalf of the respondents and resisted the writ petition. The Deputy Solicitor General of India pointed out that the petitioner was granted opportunity to represent, as regards transfer. The petitioner did not avail that opportunity. This Court has considered a similar issue in W.P.(C) No.11841 of 2018, wherein this Court declined to grant any relief in the matter of transfer holding that the petitioner therein did not respond to the notification by filing appropriate representation. In this writ petition also, the petitioner has failed to submit his options earlier.

I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Deputy Solicitor General of India representing the respondents.

The petitioner was posted in the present station at Cochin Shipyard Limited in the month of November, 2019. It is after 3½ years that the petitioner is being transferred to Sivagangai. In Ext.P1, the Constables and other employees were required to make any representation regarding transfer, before 05.05.2023. Ext.P1 was issued on 02.05.2023. Perhaps it was due to the small window given for submission of representations, the respondents issued Ext.P2 on 08.05.2023. By Ext.P2, the respondents gave opportunity to file representation upto 12.05.2023. The petitioner has not availed the opportunity both times. The petitioner is approaching this Court after finalisation of transfer.

It is a settled proposition of law that the Courts should not interfere in transfer orders, unless those transfer orders are found violating any statutory rules or are issued mala fide. There is no violation of any statutory orders or mala fide alleged by the petitioner in the writ petition. The CISF is a disciplined force and employees like the petitioner are expected to strictly adhere to official orders.

In the circumstances, I find no merit in the writ petition.

The writ petition is dismissed.