Manipur High Court
Shri Thanglemsang Khongsai vs The Union Of India Represented ... on 26 May, 2022
Page |1
Digitally signed
KABOR by
KABORAMBAM IN THE HIGH COURT OF MANIPUR
AMBAM LARSON
Date: AT IMPHAL
LARSON 2022.05.27
12:21:41 +05'30' W.P.(C) No.783 of 2021
Shri Thanglemsang Khongsai, aged about 41 Years, S/O Haop
Khongsai of Zolzam Village, P.O. & P.S. Churachandpur, District
Churachandpur, Manipur - 795128, at present posting at 86 Bn,
CRPF as CT/GD having IRLA No.055152254.
....... Petitioner/s
- Versus -
1. The Union of India represented through its Home Secretary
(Ministry of Home Affairs) North Block, Government of India -
110001.
2. The Director General of Police, CRPF, CGO Complex, Lodhi
Road, New Delhi - 03.
3. The IGP, Manipur and Nagaland Sector, Group Centre CRPF
Langjing, Manipur - 795113.
4. The Digcent (ADM) Manipur and Nagaland Sector, Group
Centre CRPF Langjing, Manipur - 795113.
5. The Commandant 86 Bn, CRPF, Lamphelpat, Imphal - 795004.
W.P.(C) No.783 of 2021
Page |2
6. The Commandant 27 Bn, CRPF, Bawana - Narela Rd, JJ
Colony Cluster Colony, Bawana, Delhi, 110039.
..... Respondent/s
BEFORE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.V. MURALIDARAN
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. M. Devananda, Advocate
Mr. K. Roshan, Advocate
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Salam Samarjeet, Sr. PCCG
Date of Hearing : 17.05.2022.
Date of Judgment & Order : 26.05.2022.
JUDGMENT &ORDER
(CAV)
Calling in question the transfer order dated 20.9.2021 and the
consequential orders, viz., the movement order dated 22.10.2021 and the
signal order dated 25.10.2021, the petitioner has filed this writ petition. To
elaborate, the order dated 20.9.2021 is an order of transfer, transferring
the petitioner from 86 Bn to 27 BN. The communication dated 22.10.2021
is an inter-departmental communication directing the authority concerned
W.P.(C) No.783 of 2021
Page |3
to do the needful to enable the petitioner proceed on transfer to 27 BN. By
order dated 25.10.2021, the respondent authorities rejected the request of
the petitioner to consider posting him at GC Imphal or any Imphal based
offices on compassionate medical ground.
[2] The pivotal contention of the learned counsel appearing for
the petitioner is that the transfer order and the posting order have
been issued in contravention of the restrictions as laid down in
Guideline no.22.4 for the medical categorization P-3 vide the
Standing Order No.04/2008, dated 15.12.2008.
[3] The next plank of the argument of the learned counsel for
the petitioner is that the petitioner was transferred and posted to the
86 Bn only in the year 2016 and inasmuch as he has not completed
the zonal tenure of 14 years under the North East Zone and Sector
Tenure of 10 years under the M & N Sector as prescribed under Para
No.4(ix) of the Standing Order No.07/2015, he ought not to have
been transferred. That apart, the respondent authorities are
empowered to grant relaxation of one year in view of Para
No.4(xvi)(b)(iv) and (viii) of the Standing Order No.07/2015,
considering the physical health of the petitioner, but the
W.P.(C) No.783 of 2021
Page |4
respondents, being hell-bent, have effected transfer of the
petitioner.
[4] Per contra, it is the submission of the learned Senior Panel
Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents that the petitioner
was posted at 86 Bn, Impal with effect from 25.10.2016. According
to Para 4(viii) of the Standing Order No.07/2015, the normal tenure
in field station is of four years and since the petitioner completed his
normal tenure in 86 Bn, his nomination was forwarded and
thereupon he was posted to 27 Bn vide proceedings dated
20.9.2021.
[5] The contention of the learned Senior Panel Counsel
appearing for the respondents is that there was no violation of
Guideline No.22.4 of the Standing Order No.04/2008, dated
15.12.2008, as the petitioner has been performing only light duty.
[6] The next contention of the learned Senior Panel Counsel is
that the petitioner had been examined by the Medical Officer of the
86 Bn and it was opined that the petitioner had no impairment of
voice and light duty was advised to be allotted to him. Accordingly,
the respondents had only allotted light duty at the transferred place.
W.P.(C) No.783 of 2021
Page |5
[7] Heard learned counsel on either side and perused the
documents available on record.
[8] The only plea of the petitioner is that while effecting his
transfer, the respondent authorities had violated Guideline No.22.4
for the medical categorization P-3 vide the Standing Order
No.04/2008, dated 15.12.2008 and Para Nos.4(viii), (ix), (xvi) (b)
(iv) & (viii) of the Standing Order No.07/2015. To analyze the said
argument, the relevant paragraphs are extracted herein under:
22.4. "P" Factor (Physical Capacity):
This factor shall cover to describe in details about the
physical capacity, strength, endurance, mobility, agility and
activity of a person, which might be restricted by
Medical/surgical conditions and those which are not
covered under other factors. Concessions are embedded as
a function of age under this factor, since stamina and
endurance do decrease with ageing process without any
obvious pathology being visible.
W.P.(C) No.783 of 2021
Page |6
Numerical Functional Capacity Employability
Grading Limitations
P-3 Has major disablement Fit for sedentary duties
with limited physical not involving undue
capacity and stamina stress. May have
restricted employability as
advised by medical
authorities such as:-
a. To avoid places with
high humidity level
75% round the year.
b. Have access to
specialist services
nearby.
c. To avoid driving/
handling of weapons
near water, fire or
heavy machinery.
d. Restricting Physical
excess, work in
desert/snow bound
areas, etc.
W.P.(C) No.783 of 2021
Page |7
e. Restricting active
participation in
hostilities, counter
insurgency operations
etc. (excluding staff,
logistics and allied
support duties).
04. Eligibility for transfer: NGOs (Executive) personnel will
be eligible for static posting subject to vacancy and
administrative convenience as per the following conditions:
...
(viii) Normal tenure in field station is of 04 years and for
hard field area/SOZ, Static and peace stations is 03 years.
(ix) A person can serve in a particular Range/Sector for
maximum 10 years and in a particular Zone for 14 years. It
is compulsory for a NGO to serve in a Zone other than his
Home Zone for a period of 14 years at least once in his full
service.
...
W.P.(C) No.783 of 2021
Page |8
(xvi) However, the eligibility conditions as laid down above
may be relaxed by one year in very deserving cases by
Sector IGP in the following circumstances:-
(a) ....
(b) Transfer on medical grounds may be considered on
merit in case one's spouse or child suffering from any of
the following disease:-
i. Cancer
ii. Paralytic Stroke
iii. Renal failure
iv. Coronary artery disease, Thalassaemia
v. Parkinson's disease.
vi. Motor-neuron disease
vii. Infertility
viii. Any other critical/serious disease if recommended
by the board of medical officers/Composite
Hospitals.
[9] In the case on hand, it is not in dispute that the petitioner
was transferred to the 86 Bn, Imphal on 25.10.2016. Therefore,
admittedly, he had served his normal tenure in 86 Bn of CRPF.
W.P.(C) No.783 of 2021
Page |9
Paragraph 4(ix) of the Standing Order lays down the maximum
tenure in a particular Sector/Zone during the entire service period
and it not continuous period.
[10] Coming to violation of Para 22.4 of the Standing Order
No.04/2008, it only states that when an employee has major
disablement with limited physical capacity and stamina, he may be
allotted restricted employability as advised by the medical
authorities such as (i) to avoid places with high humidity level 75%
round the year; (ii) have access to specialist services nearby; (iii) to
avoid driving/handling of weapons near water, fire or heavy
machinery; (iv) restricting physical excess, work in desert/snow
bound areas, etc.; and (v) restricting active participation in
hostilities, counter insurgency operations etc. (excluding staff,
logistics and allied support duties).
[11] Admittedly, the petitioner was examined by the Medical
Officer of 86 Bn and the authorities were advised to post him on light
duty. It is not the case of the petitioner that he had been allotted
heavy duty. The respondent authorities had paid heed to the opinion
of the Medical Officer and allotted the petitioner only light duty.
W.P.(C) No.783 of 2021
P a g e | 10
Therefore, it does not lie in the mouth of the petitioner that the
transfer is in violation of the Standing Orders.
[12] It is the specific case of the respondents that they had
transferred the petitioner to 27 Bn, CRPF, which is located in Delhi
and where advanced medical facilities are available. It is also not in
dispute that the petitioner was all along performing light duties
without the help of any attender and the assigned task given to him
was duly completed, despite his medical category.
[13] The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Shilpi Bose v. State of
Bihar, 1991 Supp (2) SCC 659 had emphatically held that a
government servant holding a transferable post has no vested right
to remain posted at one place or other, and he is liable to be
transferred from one place to another. It was further observed that
even if a transfer order is passed in violation of executive
instructions or orders, the courts ordinarily should not interfere with
the order, as such interference would result in complete chaos in the
administration, which would not conducive to public interest.
[14] Admittedly, the order of transfer does not adversely affect
the status or emoluments or seniority of the petitioner. The
W.P.(C) No.783 of 2021
P a g e | 11
petitioner has no vested right to get a posting at a place of his
choice. It is for the respondent authorities to determine at which
place and for how long the services of a particular employee are
required. The transfer order has been passed considering the
administrative exigency and not arbitrarily or for extraneous
consideration or for victimization of the petitioner.
[15] In fine, this Court finds no violation of any Standing
Orders. The transfer has been effected in tune with the Standing
Orders and is also supported by the opinion of the Medical Officer.
The petitioner had only been allotted light duty work and that too at
the place which has better medical facilities.
For the foregoing reasons, finding no merits, the writ
petition is dismissed. There will be no order as to costs.
JUDGE
FR/NFR
-Larson
W.P.(C) No.783 of 2021
