Jugendra Singh vs Union Of India
2021 Latest Caselaw 2955 MP

                                                                       1
           THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                       WP.11471 of 2021.
               (Jugendra Singh Vs. State of M.P. )

GWALIOR; dated 05.07.2020.

      Shri Arun Katare, counsel, for the petitioner.

      Shri Praveen Kumar Newaskar, Asstt. Solicitor General, for the

respondents/Union of India.

With the consent of parties, the matter is finally heard.

In the wake of unprecedented and uncertain situation due to

outbreak of the Novel Corona virus (COVID-19) and considering the

advisories issued by the Government of India, this application has been

heard and decided through video conferencing to maintain social

distancing. The parties are being represented by the respective counsels

through video conferencing, following the norms of social distancing/

physical distancing in letter and spirit.

Present petition has been filed being aggrieved by the order dated

26.6.2021, whereby the petitioner has been transferred from BSF

Tekanpur Academy Gwalior to 112 Bn BSF Kalyani, West Bengal.

It is alleged that the challenge is made to the impugned order on

the ground of medical ailment of the petitioner pointing out the fact that

the petitioner is suffering from Cervical Spondylitis C3 to C6 with

PVID L4-L5, L5-S1 with Radiculopathy and the respondents declared

the petitioner unfit to remain in medical category SHAPE-1 and placed

him under medical category SLH1A2 (S) P1E1. It is submitted that

looking to the ailment of the petitioner, posting of the petitioner to West

Bengal at distant place is unwarranted in the facts and circumstances of

THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH WP.11471 of 2021.

(Jugendra Singh Vs. State of M.P. )

the case. He had preferred a representation to the authorities giving

options for his transfer at some nearby place i.e. First choice Bhondsi

95 Bn BSF the same is situated nearer to New Delhi, Second choice

Noida 165 Bn BSF the same is nearer to the NCR and Third choice

Mathura 178 Bn BSF. But request of the petitioner was not accepted

and so far as knowledge of the petitioner is concerned, he was asked to

give other choices. Therefore, the petitioner had submitted other choices

such as (1) 49 Bn BSF Srinagar, (2) 53 Bn BSF Ganghi Nagar and (3)

168 Bn BSF Achad Baramula Srinagar. But prior to consideration of the

choices which have been put forth by the petitioner, transfer order has

been passed. It is submitted that the petitioner is a honest and dedicated

employee working for the country at large but looking to the ailment, he

prays for interference in the transfer order. The petitioner is ready to go

to Srinagar, Gandhi Nagar and Baramula Srinagar. But the respondent

no.5 has not paid any heed to the representation therefore, prayed for a

direction that his representation may be considered by the authorities

sympathetically on the medical ground and till his representation is

decided, he may be permitted to continue at present place of posting. It

is argued that ailment of the petitioner can further be got examined by

the Medical Board.

Per contra, counsel appearing for the respondents/Union of India

has vehemently opposed the prayer and submits that the transfer is

condition of service and the petitioner himself has given choices to get

THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH WP.11471 of 2021.

(Jugendra Singh Vs. State of M.P. )

him posted at distant place i.e. Srinagar (Baramula) and Gandhi Nagar.

It is further submitted that ailment of petitioner is not of such a nature

for which, the petitioner could have asked for transfer at Srinagar. The

petitioner can get all the treatment at West Bengal also. He has placed

reliance upon the judgment passed by Division Bench in W.P.No.857 of

2019 wherein, on the ground of ailment, transfer was asked to be

interfered with by this court which was ultimately dismissed vide order

dated 21.6.2019. It is submitted that the petitioner will be given all the

treatment which he requires at the transferred place. It is argued that the

transfer order was passed in the month of May, 2021 and the impugned

order passed on 26.6.2021 is a relieving order of the petitioner. In such

circumstances, without there being any challenge to the transfer order,

no interference can be made in the petition by this court. He prays for

dismissal of the same.

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

From perusal of record, it is seen that the petitioner was

transferred in the month of May, 2021 and subsequently, he has been

relieved vide order dated 26.6.2021 which has been impugned in the

present petition. The petitioner himself has given choices for his posting

to a distant places i.e. Sri Nagar, Gandhi Nagar and Sri Nagar

(Baramula). Therefore, ailment of the petitioner cannot be said to be a

ground for interference in the transfer once he has chosen to get himself

transferred to a distant place. The ailment of the petitioner can very well

THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH WP.11471 of 2021.

(Jugendra Singh Vs. State of M.P. )

be taken care of by the authorities at the transferred place also. The

Division Bench of this court in aforesaid case (Supra) has held as

under :

"5. After having heard the learned counsel for the rival parties, this Court deems it appropriate to remind the appellant that he is a member of a disciplined force where posting and transfer are made after keeping into account large number of variable factors including sovereignty, integrity and security of the Nation.

6. The appellant who is a member of para military does not seem to suffer from any serious ailment and thus should not allow the minor ailment to come in conflict with the call of duty.

7. Appellant needs to be reminded that when nation beckons personal interests take a back seat.

8. In view of above, this Court finds no reason to interfere in the well reasoned order impugned herein of learned single judge and therefore, the present appeal stands dismissed, sans cost".

In such circumstances, as the transfer is a condition of service and

the person employed in the disciplined force serving for the nation is

expected to comply with the transfer order. In such circumstances, the

petitioner being a member of uniform service force of BSF is required

to comply with the transfer order. In such circumstances, no

interference is called for.

The petition is sans merits and is hereby dismissed.

CC as per rules.

(Vishal Mishra) Judge Rks.

RAM KUMAR SHARMA 2021.07.07 15:05:12 +05'30'