Delhi High Court
Karmveer vs Union Of India & Ors. on 16 February, 2021
$~A-10
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P. (C) 6927/2020 & CM APPL. 23756/2020
KARMVEER .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Nitin Kumar Chahar, Advocate
with Mr. Mukul Katyal, Advocate.
Versus
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. .....Respondents
Through: Ms. Amrita Prakash, CGSC for
respondents No.1 and 2.
Mr. V.S.R. Krishna, Advocate with
Mr. V. Shashank Kumar, Advocate
for respondent No.3.
% Date of Decision: 16th February, 2021
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE ASHA MENON
JUDGMENT
MANMOHAN, J (Oral):
1. Petitioner, who is a Sub-Inspector with ITBP, has filed the present
writ petition impugning the order dated 16th September, 2020 transferring
him from Rewari in Haryana to Reckong Peo, Himachal Pradesh.
2. Learned counsel for petitioner states that the son of the petitioner is
visually impaired and has been certified by the respondent No.3-All India
Institute of Medical Sciences as suffering from 100% disability. He
states that the petitioner needs to be posted in and around Delhi as he is
the only family member who can take care of the medical needs of his
son as his wife is suffering from Tuberculosis.
3. In the counter affidavit, it has been stated by the respondents No.1
and 2 that the petitioner has been posted in soft area for more than eleven
years on account of treatment of his son. It is further stated that as per the
transfer policy of the Force, the normal tenure of posting in a soft area of
a personnel is a fixed period of three years and the petitioner was due for
transfer to Extreme Hard Area or Hard Area in 2014.
4. It is also stated in the counter affidavit that the grievance of the
petitioner has been considered by the Department from time to time, but
due to cadre review of the force, sanctioned posts of SI(CM) of Units
have been reduced from three to two, due to which the petitioner became
surplus in the 28th Bn. and accordingly he has been transferred to 17th Bn.,
Reckong Peo as per transfer cycle and policy guidelines.
5. It is further stated that presently 6469 personnel of this Force are in
low medical category and priority is being given to those who are ill and
unfit for duties in hard area and extreme hard areas. The relevant portion
of the counter affidavit is reproduced hereinbelow:-
".... it is not feasible to retain the Petitioner in Soft Area i.e.
Delhi/NCR. It is further submitted that being a member of
the uniformed Force, Petitioner is liable to be deployed at
any place in public interest and depending upon various
operational needs and administrative exigencies. It is also
submitted that the grievances of every Force member are also
required to be looked on equally. The Petitioner has already
been given adequate opportunity for 11 years continuously
beyond his normal tenure of 03 years in Delhi/NCR."
6. Having heard learned counsel for parties and having perused the
papers, this Court is of the view that the petitioner has been given soft
postings for a relatively long time namely eleven years. It is not possible
for the ITBP which operates primarily in high altitude areas close to Indo-
China border to post an officer indefinitely in and around Delhi.
7. At times, Courts have to take an 'agonising decision'. Keeping in
view the fact that presently 6469 personnel of ITBP are in low medical
category and priority has been given to those who are ill and unfit, this
Court is of the view that sympathy to the petitioner cannot be at the cost
of other personnel of the respondent ITBP Force. Consequently, the
petitioner is not entitled to any relief at this stage. Accordingly, the
present petition and pending application stand disposed of.
MANMOHAN, J
ASHA MENON, J
FEBRUARY 16, 2021
js
