Madras High Court
G.Maruthupandian vs 3 The Commandant on 6 April, 2022
W.P.No.24164 of 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 6.4.2022
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D.KRISHNAKUMAR
W.P.No.24164 of 2021
and W.M.P.No.25488 of 2021
1 G.Maruthupandian ... Petitioner
Vs.
1 The Special Director General of Police,
South Zone, Central Reserve Police Force (CRPF),
Chandrayangutta, Keshogiri,
Hyderabad, Telangana-500005.
2 The Inspector General of Police,
Karnataka- Kerala Sector (KKS) Central,
Reserve Police Force (CRPF) Group Centre,
Doddaballapur Road, Yelahanka,
Bengaluru, Karanataka- 560064.
3 The Commandant,
77 Battalion, Central Reserve Police Force,
Poonamallee, Chennai-600 056. ... Respondents
Prayer : Writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,
praying for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the
records relating to the impugned order of the third respondent in No. T.IX-1/
2021 Adjt/77 dated 25.10.2021 and quash the same in so far as the petitioner
is concerned and direct the Respondents to retain the Petitioner in the
Present station itself namely Chennai for availing specialist treatment in the
light of the orders passed by this Court in S.Dakshinamurthy Vs.The Inspector
General of Police Southern Sector, Hyderabad in W.A.No.1273 of 2017 dated
25.10.2017.
1/9
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.24164 of 2021
For Petitioner : Mr.P.Manojkumar
For Respondent : Ms.Sangeetha Rajkumar for
Mr.P.G.Santhosh Kumar
*****
ORDER
According to the petitioner, when the petitioner was working as
Police Constable in Central Reserve Police Force (CRPF), the third respondent
passed the impugned transfer order transferring the petitioner to Baliguda,
Kandhamal District, Odisha State. According to the petitioner, the petitioner
underwent left eye surgery on 4.3.2017. The petitioner also underwent renal
transplantation and therefore, he could not able to walk long distance to carry
heavy weight. Due to the aforesaid ailments, his health condition is
deteriorated. The petitioner further submitted that he completed 20 years of
service in CRPF department and he is going to submit Voluntary Retirement
Service. For the short period, the petitioner was transferred to the far away
Station from Chennai which would further deteriorate his health condition. On
this aspect, the petitioner seeks to interfere with the impugned order passed
by the respondent.
2. The respondent filed counter affidavit wherein it is stated that
the petitioner cannot take advantage of the aforesaid medical ground and
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.24164 of 2021
refused to join duty in the transferred station. Such transfer order is condition
to service and in the light of the decision of this Court in various decision, he
cannot have any legal right to seek such transfer. According to the
respondents, due to administrative reason, the petitioner has been transferred
to Odisha. The department is already having a large number of personnel who
are placed in low medical category due to injuries sustained in various counter
insurgency operation, law and orders duties, militant operations etc. Efforts
are being taken to rehabilitate such personnel by detailing them on various
skill development courses etc. No such personnel in low medical category/poor
health history are forced to perform duties which are beyond their physical
competency or against the advice of the treating medical officers. During his
tenure of posting in the third respondent office, the petitioner has not
performed a single 'active duty' which is expected of a jawan in CRPF, owing to
his ill health. Further, as per CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972, he will be able to
apply for voluntary retirement only after completion of 20 years of qualifying
service. The petitioner's medical needs and requirements have been well
taken care of and as such the grounds put forth by the petitioner are
unacceptable.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.24164 of 2021
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted
that so far the petitioner has obeyed the orders of the respondent. After
completing 20 years of service, due to prevailing health conditions, as per
Rules, the petitioner preferred voluntary retirement from service(VRS),
therefore, the respondent has to consider the representation of the petitioner
to retain him in the present place i.e Chennai or transfer to Avadi. To that
extent the petitioner has also made representation to reconsider the impugned
order .
4. The learned Senior Central Government Standing Counsel
appearing for the respondents 1 &2 objected the contentions made by the
learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and submitted that in light of the
several decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the petitioner has no legal right
to challenge the transfer order made on administrative reasons.
5. It is pertinent to rely upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in the case of Mrs. Shilpi Bose Vs.State of Bihar reported in AIR 1991
SC 532 has held that the Courts should not interfere with the transfer orders
made on administrative reasons unless the there is violation of any mandatory
statutory rule or on the ground of malafide. The relevant portion of the
judgment is extracted below:
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.24164 of 2021
“In our opinion, the courts should not interfere with a transfer
order which are made in public interest and for administrative
reasons unless the transfer orders are made in violation of any
mandatory statutory rule or on the ground of malafide. A
Government servant holding a transferable post has no vested right
to remain posted at one place or the other, he is liable to be
transferred from one place to the other. Transfer orders issued by
the competent authority do not violate any of his legal rights. Even
if a transfer order is passed in violation of executive instructions or
orders, the Courts ordinarily should not interfere with the order of
executive instructions or orders, the Courts ordinarily should not
interfere with the order instead affected party should approach the
higher authorities in the Department....”
6. Further in the case of LM.Salim & another Vs. Principal Chief
Security Commissioner, Railway Protection Force, Southern Railway
Chennai & 3 others, wherein I had an occasion to deal with the similar issue
in detail by relying upon various decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and
held that in the absence of any such legal ground, routine administrative
transfers can never be interfered with by the Constitutional Courts. The
relevant portion is extracted hereunder:
“7. That apart, administrative transfers are the prerogative of the
Department concerned and the competent authorities are the best
persons to assess and act accordingly. However, those competent
authorities should act in the interest of public and in the event of any
illegality or some personal motive, then alone, the employee can
approach the Court of law for appropriate remedy. In other words, if
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.24164 of 2021
an order of transfer is issued with malafide intention or in violation
of the statutory rules, then alone a writ petition can be entertained.
Even in such cases, the allegation of malafide intention must be
substantiated in the writ proceedings and the official concerned must
be impleaded as party respondents in the writ proceedings. In the
absence of any such legal ground, routine administrative transfers
can never be interfered with by the Constitutional Courts. Transfer is
an incidental to service, more so, a condition of service. Public
servant is liable to work wherever he is posted in the interest of
public administration. On accepting the offer of appointment, a
person is agreeing for the conditions of service and transfer being
incidental, he must be in a position to work, wherever he is posted.
......
9. In State of U.P. and others vs. Siya Ram and others [(2004) 7
SCC 405], the Honourable Supreme Court has held that unless the
order of transfer is shown to be an outcome of malafide exercise or
stated to be in violation of statutory provisions prohibiting any such
transfer, the Courts or the Tribunals normally cannot interfere with
such orders as a matter of routine, as though they were the appellate
authorities substituting their own decision for that of the employer /
management, as against such orders passed in the interest of
administrative exigencies of the service concerned.
10. Further, in Airports Authority of India vs. Rajeev Ratan Pandey
and others [(2009) 8 SCC 337], the Honourable Supreme Court has
held that in the matter of transferring Government employees, the
scope of judicial review is limited and the High Courts should not
interfere with an order of transfer lightly.
11. In the instant case, on perusal of the materials available on
records, this Court does not find any mala fide exercise or violation
of any statutory provision on the part of the respondents and
therefore, the impugned transfer orders and the consequential
relieving orders do not warrant any interference of this Court and
the writ petitions are therefore liable to the dismissed.”
7. Admittedly, the impugned transfer order issued to the petitioner
was made on administrative reasons and based on the request made by the
petitioner, the petitioner was retained for three years in the present station
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.24164 of 2021
by the respondent on medical grounds and thereafter the petitioner was
directed to report duty at the transferred place i.e 127 Battalion CRPF located
at Kandhamal, Odhisha. In view of the decisions cited supra, the impugned
transfer orders issued on administrative grounds cannot be interfered with by
this Court.
8. However, taking note of the fact that the petitioner is suffering
from severe health ailments, which has been substantiated by way of medical
reports and also considering the fact that the petitioner has submitted
application for voluntary retirement from service due to his prevailing health
condition, this Court is of the view that his request to retain him in the present
station or near by in the State of Tamil Nadu is reasonable and no prejudice
would be caused to the respondents. Accordingly, the following directions are
issued to the respondents.
i. The petitioner is directed to make a fresh representation along with
additional particulars in regard to his medical treatment to the 3 rd
respondent, within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a
copy of this order.
ii. On receipt of such representation, the third respondent is directed to
consider the same and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law,
as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of four weeks
thereafter.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.24164 of 2021
iii. Interim stay already granted by this Court shall continue till final orders
passed by the third respondent.
9. With the above directions, the writ petition stands disposed of.
No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.
6.04.2022
Speaking / Non Speaking order
Index : Yes/No
Internet : Yes/No
vaan
To
1 The Special Director General of Police,
South Zone, Central Reserve Police Force (CRPF),
Chandrayangutta, Keshogiri,
Hyderabad, Telangana-500005.
2 The Inspector General of Police,
Karnataka- Kerala Sector (KKS) Central,
Reserve Police Force (CRPF) Group Centre,
Doddaballapur Road, Yelahanka,
Bengaluru, Karanataka- 560064.
3 The Commandant,
77 Battalion, Central Reserve Police Force,
Poonamallee, Chennai-600 056.
D.KRISHNAKUMAR, J.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.24164 of 2021
vaan
W.P.No.24164 of 2021
and W.M.P.No.25488 of 2021
Dated: 6.4.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
