An Sashastra Seema Bal constable challenged his transfer from Delhi to Guwahati citing his kidney transplant, his father's dialysis and his daughter's schooling. After respondents passed a reasoned order modifying posting to Guwahati but permitting retention of Delhi quarters, the court declined to interfere and dismissed the writ petition.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
$~112
CHAMAN LAL .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Nikhil Bhardwaj, Adv.
versus
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS .....Respondents Through: Mr. Balendu Shekhar CGSC, Mr. Krishna Chaitanya GP, Mr. Divyansh Singh Dev, Advs.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C. HARI SHANKAR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE OM PRAKASH SHUKLA
ORDER (ORAL)
% 22.07.2025
C.HARI SHANKAR, J.
1. The petitioner, who serves in the Sashastra Seema Bal1 , was earlier transferred from Delhi to Balrampur, Uttar Pradesh. He assailed the said transfer before this Court by way of WP (C) 8884/20252 .
2. It was pointed out, in the said petition, that the petitioner’s wife had donated a kidney to him, as a result of which the petitioner and his
1 “SSB” hereinafter
2 Chaman Lal v UOI
W.P.(C) 10487/2025
Page 1 of 4
wife were both surviving with one kidney each and that his father was on dialysis and his daughter was studying in Class X.
3. The petitioner had represented against his transfer to Balrampur. However, the representation was rejected by an unreasoned order on 17 June 2025.
4. In these circumstances, this court, by its order dated 3 July 2025, disposed of WP (C) 8884/2025 with a direction to the respondents to treat the writ petition as a representation and to pass a reasoned and speaking order on the petitioner’s challenge to his transfer to Balrampur.
5. The respondent has, pursuant to our directions, passed an order on 17 July 2025. The order, clearly, is a reasoned order.
6. The order notes that, keeping in view the difficulties expressed by the petitioner, his transfer had been modified and the petitioner was now being posted at Guwahati.
7. Mr. Balendu Shekhar, learned CGSC, who appears for the respondent submits that, in order to ensure that the medical treatment of the petitioner’s family is not affected and his daughter does not suffer, the respondents have permitted the petitioner to retain his residential accommodation in Delhi.
W.P.(C) 10487/2025
Page 2 of 4
8. We may reproduce, in this context, paras 11 and 12 of the order dated 17 July 2025, passed by the respondents, thus:
“11. And Whereas, in compliance of Hon’ble Court direction, a Board of Officers was constituted which includes Medical Officer to examine the case of CT(Driver) Chaman Lal. The Board of officers considered the Writ Petition as well as the medical documents and are of the opinion that CT(Driver) Chaman Lal should be posted to 1st Bn Sonapur (Guwahati) in view of good medical facilities, including AIIMS, GMCH, etc available there, where he can go for review at the Nephrology department. As per RME board he is fit for all duties except severe stress, and has placed restriction on employability at high altitude/hilly terrain. Furthermore, the judgment quoted by the petitioner is not applicable in his case as he has already been granted extension on humanitarian ground and has availed period equivalent to two tenures at Force Hqrs, New Delhi.
9. Mr. Bhardwaj, learned Counsel for the petitioner, has earnestly sought to pursue us to interfere in the matter, as he submits that the petitioner and his family are in very difficult circumstances. He points out that the petitioner’s father has to undergo dialysis thrice a week and that a central line has also been placed, which makes him susceptible to infection. He also seeks to rely on literature which would indicate that persons who are surviving with one kidney each have their own health concerns.
10. While we empathize with the petitioner, there are limits beyond
W.P.(C) 10487/2025
Page 3 of 4
which a writ court cannot travel. The respondents, we feel, have been fair in allowing the petitioner to retain his residential accommodation. That facility would itself cater to the petitioner’s daughter’s education, as she would be in a position to complete her education in Delhi.
11. Insofar as the other circumstances pointed out by Mr. Bhardwaj are concerned, we are of the opinion that, once the petitioner has been permitted to retain his accommodation at Delhi, we would be overstepping our jurisdiction if we issue a mandamus to the respondent not to transfer the petitioner to Guwahati.
12. We, therefore, regret that we are not in a position to interfere in the present writ petition.
13. However, this would not preclude the respondents from, if they so choose, reconsidering the petitioner’s prayer. We make it clear, in that event, no observation contained in this order would stand in the way of a fresh consideration.
14. Subject to the aforesaid, the writ petition stands dismissed.
C.HARI SHANKAR, J.
OM PRAKASH SHUKLA, J.
JULY 22, 2025/ng
W.P.(C) 10487/2025
Page 4 of 4
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the writ court should interfere with the transfer of an SSB constable to Guwahati despite his family's medical and educational circumstances, after a reasoned reconsideration order.
Chaman Lal
Union of India and Ors
C. Hari Shankar
Om Prakash Shukla
As recorded by the court registry
A petition under Article 226 of the Constitution asking a High Court to issue a writ against the State or a public authority in a civil matter.
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
