Disposed

Constable Sri Madan Mishra v. Union of India

Gauhati HC2 Feb 2018WP(C)/484/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This judgment allows the petitioner, a CISF constable facing transfer to Port Blair, permission to submit a representation for retention at his current posting. The Court directed the respondent authority to apply their mind to the petitioners education and tenure-related grievances under the CISF Circular before deciding on feasibility within a stipulated time.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner permitted to file representation for retention; transfer order stayed pending authority's speaking decision on feasibility.

Constable Sri Madan Mishra Vs Union of India — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Gauhati HC (2018)

¶1

Page No.# 1/3

¶2

GAHC010015732018

¶3

THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)

¶4

Case No. : WP(C) 484/2018

¶5

1:CONSTABLE SRI MADAN MISHRA CISF NO. 943190109

¶6

S/O SRI SHIVA JANAM MISHRA, PERMANENT RESIDENT OF VILLUDHAURA, P.O. DALLUPUR, DIST. BUXAR, STATE BIHAR, ZONE EAST ZONE-802130, PRESENTLY SERVING AS CONSTABLE AT CISF UNIT INDIAN OIL CORPORATION (IOC) GUWAHATI NOONMATI, GUWAHATI DIST. KAMRUP (M), ASSAM

¶7

VERSUS

¶8

1:UNION OF INDIA MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS, NORTH BLOCK- NEW DELHI-01 NEW DELHI ( REP. BY UNION HOME SECRETARY)

¶9

2:THE DIRECTORATE GENERAL CENTRAL INDUSTRIAL SECURITY FORCE (C.I.S.F.) CISF HQRS CGO COMPLEX LODHI ROAD, NEW DELHI

¶10

3:INSPECTOR GENERAL (IG) NES HQRS KOLKATA AREA NO. 553 (PARISHAR SANKHYA) EAST KOLKATA TOWNSHEP KASBA KOLKATA-107 WEST BENGAL

¶11

4:DEPUTY INSPECTOR GENERAL (DIG) NES HQRS KOKKATA AREA (PARISHAR SANKHYA) NO. 553 EAST KOLKATA

¶12

Page No.# 2/3

¶13

TOWNSHIP- KASBA KOLKATA-107 WEST BENGAL

¶14

5:COMMANDANT CISF GROUP HQRS BEHARBARI NEAR A.G. COLONY HOCKEY STADIUM ROAD P.O. BASISTHA, DIST. KAMRUP (M)

¶15

6:DY. COMMANDANT CISF UNIT IOC GUWAHATI -NOONMATI KAMRUP (M), ASSAM

¶16

Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. B K BHAGAWATI

¶17

Advocate for the Respondent : ASSTT.S.G.I.

¶18

BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HRISHIKESH ROY

¶19

JUDGMENT

¶20

Date : 02-02-2018

¶21

The petitioner is serving as a Constable (GD), in the CISF and is currently attached with the CISF Unit, posted at the Indian Oil Corporation, Noonmati, Guwahati. The challenge here is to the transfer order dated 25.1.2018 (Annexure-J), whereby the constable is shifted to Port Blair (Andaman & Nicobar Islands).

¶22

The learned counsel Mr. B.K. Bhagawati submits that the petitioner’s daughter and son are scheduled to appear in Class-XII and Class-X Board examination this year, to be followed by other competitive examinations and therefore, the movement of the father should be deferred. The extension of tenure, on account of children’s education is claimed under Clause 26 of the CISF’s Circular No.22/2017, dated 25.9.2017 (Annexure-F). Mr. Bhagawati further submits that currently the petitioner is serving his 3^rd tenure in the hard area and therefore, he should not be moved to another hard posting, as provided under Clause 37 of the Circular.

¶23

On the other hand, Ms. A. Gayan, the learned CGC, submits that the petitioner can be allowed

¶24

Page No.# 3/3

¶25

to retain his family quarter at Noonmati, to facilitate the completion of the children’s Boards examination. She further submits that the petitioner was earlier exempted from transfer in 2016—17, on the ground of his children’s education.

¶26

As the transferred personnel are required to immediately move to the transferred station, in order to balance the interest of both sides, the petitioner is permitted to address a representation for his retention, to the IG/DIG, NES (HQ), Kolkata, within a week. On receipt of intimation of the Court’s order, the competent authority should apply his mind to the grievance raised by the CISF constable with due weightage to Clause 12, 26 & 37, of the CISF’s Circular No.22/2017. The authority should specifically decide whether retention of the petitioner for one more year at Guwahati, is feasible. An appropriate speaking order should then be passed. Until the representation is finalized, the petitioner should not be forced to abide by the impugned transfer order dated 25.1.2018 (Annexure-J). It is ordered accordingly.

¶27

With the above order, the case stands disposed of. No cost.

¶28

JUDGE

¶29

Comparing Assistant

Constable Sri Madan Mishra v. Union of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Constable Sri Madan Mishra v. Union of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mrs Nilima Begum Vs the State of Assam and Ors.

Sabitri Sharma Vs Dr B Borooah Cancer Institute and Ors.

Hiranya Kumar Sarma Vs the State of Assam and Ors.

Sodou Asom Jana Shasthya Rokshok Sontha Vs Samir Kumar Sinha

Khaphed Hussain Vs the State of Assam

Anima Talukdar Vs the State of Assam and 6 Ors.