Disposed

Ct/Gd (M) Alaka Basumatary v. the Union of India and 5 Ors.

Gauhati HC2 Aug 2021WP(C)/3099/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenge transfer order and refusal of further Child Care Leave. Court finds no evidence of refusal for further leave within statutory limits. Allows submission of fresh representation for consideration without mandating immediate transfer.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner allowed to submit fresh representation regarding leave and posting; relief on transfer automatically stays.

Ct/Gd (M) Alaka Basumatary Vs the Union of… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Gauhati HC (2021)

¶1

Page No.# 1/8

¶2

GAHC010095212021

¶3

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

¶4

Case No. : WP(C)/3099/2021

¶5

CT/GD (M) ALAKA BASUMATARY W/O DURLOV KUMAR BORO,

¶6

PRESENTLY RESIDES AT QUARTER NO. 280, BLOCK NO. 18, SPECIAL TYPE 1, GROUP CENTRE, CRPF, AMERIGOG, GUWAHATI, KAMRUP M ASSAM, 781023

¶7

VERSUS

¶8

THE UNION OF INDIA AND 5 ORS REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS, NEW DELHI 110003

¶9

2:THE DIRECTOR GENERAL

¶10

CRPF CENTRAL GOVT. OFFICE COMPLEX NEW DELHI 110001

¶11

3:THE SPECIAL DIRECTOR GENERAL

¶12

CENTRAL ZONE CRPF HC BLOCK SECTOR III SALT LAKE KOLKATTA WEST BENGAL 700106

¶13

Page No.# 2/8

¶14

4:THE INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE

¶15

NORTH EASTERN SECTOR CRPF SHILLONG MEGHALAYA 793001 5:THE DEPUTY INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE CRPF GROUP CENTRE GUWAHATI AMERIGOG GUWAHATI ASSAM 781023 6:THE COMMANDANT 232 ( MAHILA) BATTALION CRPF LOCATED AT SALBONI WEST MIDNAPORE WEST BENGAL 72110

¶16

Advocate for the Petitioner : MR H BEZBARUA

¶17

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

¶18

BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KALYAN RAI SURANA

¶19

ORDER

¶20

Date : 02.08.2021

¶21

Heard Mr. R. Mazumdar, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. A.K. Dutta, learned CGC appearing for the respondents.

¶22

Page No.# 3/8

¶23

By filing this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged the transfer order dated 11.04.2019 (Annexure-1), thereby transferring her to 232 (M) BN of Central Reserve Police Force (CRPF in short) from her present place of posting at Group Centre Guwahati.

¶24

Bereft of details, it would be sufficient for the purpose of this order to mention that in the year 2003, the petitioner was enrolled in CRFP as Constable (General Duty) and in the year, 2015, she was transferred to Group Centre Guwahati. In the year 2017, the respondent authorities had promoted the petitioner to the post of Head Constable, but the petitioner had forgone her promotion to remain in the same station. On 11.04.2019, the respondent authorities i.e. Office of the Director General, CRPF, through DIG (Estt.) had issued the impugned transfer order. At the request of the petitioner, the respondent authorities had deferred the order of transfer for 6 (six) months vide order dated 29.05.2019. On 20.07.2019, the petitioner gave birth to a female baby and w.e.f. 21.07.2019 to 12.02.2020, the respondent authorities had sanctioned 180 (one hundred eighty) days Maternity Leave along with 33 (thirty three) days Earned Leave to the petitioner. Thereafter, w.e.f. 13.02.2020, the respondent authorities had sanctioned 180 (one hundred eighty) days of Child Care Leave to the petitioner till 18.08.2020. By order dated 15.02.2020, the respondent authorities had issued order to relieve the petitioner after the end of the Child Care Leave. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the copy of the said order was communicated to the petitioner only in the month of

¶25

Page No.# 4/8

¶26

August, 2020 and by the said order, the petitioner was to be relieved on 11.08.2020. It is projected that the petitioner had submitted an application for Child Care Leave for another 180 (one hundred eighty) days along with Earned Leave for 60 (sixty) days vide application dated 04.08.2020. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondent authorities had refused to accept the said application and accordingly, the aggrieved petitioner had moved this Court by filing WP(C) No.3629/2020 and this Court by order dated 19.10.2020 had directed the respondent authorities to give consideration to the claim of the petitioner for 60 (sixty) days of Earned Leave and 180 (one hundred eighty) days of Child Care Leave and in doing so, to consider the Signal dated 05.09.2020 of the DIG, Group Centre for the purpose and it was provided that till such consideration is give, the petitioner shall be continued at her present place of posting. Accordingly, the respondents had granted leave to the petitioner up to 29.06.2021 by order dated 02.06.2021 directing that the petitioner shall report her duty on 30.06.2021. By the same order, the DIGP, Group Centre, CRPF had also noted that the petitioner had applied for posting to 240 (M) BN (C/240) for taking care of her both daughters and the said application was forwarded to the competent authority. While forwarding the said representation, vide forwarding letter dated 10.06.2021, the Deputy Inspector (Adm), North East Sector had made a nota-bene to the effect that the petitioner should be released 30.06.2021 as per earlier transfer order No.7/2021. The aggrieved petitioner has, therefore, approached this Court again by filing the present writ petition, inter alia, praying for setting aside the transfer order dated

¶27

Page No.# 5/8

¶28

11.04.2019 in respect of the petitioner, to quash the order dated 10.06.2021 by which the petitioner was proposed to be relieved on 30.06.2021, for a direction to the respondent no.2 to dispose of her representation dated 24.05.2021 (Annexure-7) allowing the petitioner to be posted to “C” Company of 240 (M) BN and a direction upon the respondent authorities to grant leave to the petitioner as per Rule 43-C of Central Civil Services (Leave) Rules, 1972.

¶29

The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that in the entire service career of the petitioner, she would be entitled to 730 (seven hundred thirty) days of Child Care Leave under Rule 43-C of the Central Civil Services (Leave) Rules, which can be coupled with other admissible leave. It is submitted that the present challenge is basically on two grounds, firstly, that he petitioner is entitled to Child Care Leave for 730 (seven hundred thirty) days and secondly, that while other CRPF personal were retained in and around Guwahati in other companies of the CRPF, the case of the petitioner was not considered at all. In this connection, the petitioner has referred to statement made in paragraph 22 of the writ petition wherein reference is made to two other CRPF Mahila Constable, who are serving in Guwahati even after completion of normal tenure of service. It is submitted that by virtue of an interim order dated 22.06.2021, the petitioner is still continuing at her place of positing at Group Centre, Guwahati.

¶30

The learned CGC has referred to the statement made in the affidavit-in-opposition and it is submitted that the respondent authorities have

¶31

Page No.# 6/8

¶32

granted each and every leave for which request was made. It is submitted that while considering the case of the petitioner on sympathetic ground, till the filing of the writ petition, the petitioner had availed continuous leave of approximately one year four months and that after filing of the previous writ petition, i.e. WP(C) No.3629/2020, the petitioner had applied for further Child Care Leave of 180 (one hundred eighty) days and 60 (sixty) days of Earned Leave and accordingly, on such leave being granted, the petitioner was to report for duty on 30.06.2021. The learned CGC submits that the petitioner has completed five and half years at the same place of posting against the normal tenure of three years in her home State (Static Posting). Accordingly, it is submitted that as maximum period of 730 (seven hundred thirty) days of Child Care Leave is for whole career tenure, the respondent authorities in their wisdom has rejected the request of the petitioner for transfer to 240 (M) BN (C/240) or to any Unit/ Sub Unit likely to replace the 240 (M) BN (C/240).

¶33

Considered the case projected in the writ petition and also perused the affidavit-in-opposition filed by the respondents. In respect of the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner had approached the authorities for granting remaining days of Child Care Leave, but the authorities not only expressed their inability to grant any other Child Care Leave, but also refused to accept the representation of the petitioner, the Court has perused the writ petition and it is seen that there is no statement by the petitioner as to the date on which she had approached the concerned authorities to avail further Child Care Leave and the petitioner has also not

¶34

Page No.# 7/8

¶35

made any statement that which particular authority had refused to accept her representation. The petitioner has also not disclosed the name, designation of the authority who had expressed inability to grant remaining days of Child Care Leave. The Court finds no representation in this writ petition containing a request to grant further Child Care Leave, which has remained out of the maximum 730 (seven hundred thirty) days which can be granted under Rule 43C of the Central Civil Services (Leave) Rules. The representation at Annexure-7 of the writ petition is only for transfer to Group Centre CRPF, Guwahati or posted to C/240 Bn Mahila Battalion at GC CRPF Guwahati or any incoming Mahila Bn Coys in place of C/240 BN Mahila Battalion and there is nothing in the said representation from which it can be said that the petitioner had applied for Child Care Leave. It is seen that the learned CGC is correct in respect of his statement to the effect that the respondent authorities have considered all applications submitted by the petitioner and only when leave of the petitioner was to expire on 29.06.2021 and she was required to report for service on 30.06.2021, the petitioner had filed the present writ petition.

¶36

The Court is of the considered opinion that there is nothing in the writ petition from which the Court can construed that the petitioner had invoked the provisions of Rule 43-C of the Central Civil Services (Leave) Rules to avail any further Child Care Leave from out of 730 (seven hundred thirty) days available to the credit of the CRPF personal, hence, no case is made out in the present writ petition warranting interference by this Court. However, the Court is inclined to grant an opportunity to the petitioner to submit her representation

¶37

Page No.# 8/8

¶38

before the competent authority for availing in such leave as she may be so advised and on submission of such representation, the competent authority shall consider the prayer as per legal entitlement of the petitioner.

¶39

While dispensing with production of certified copy of this order, the petitioner is at liberty to submit a copy of this order before the competent authority of the respondents along with her fresh representation and the concerned is expected to dispose of such representation, if any, within a period of 2 (two) weeks from the date of receipt of such representation, and to communicate the decision to the petitioner within a reasonable time thereafter.

¶40

In the event, any representation is submitted by the petitioner within a week from today, the Court is inclined to provide that the respondents shall not insist on the petitioner to join her present place of posting till the disposal of the proposed representation.

¶41

Writ petition stands disposed of.

¶42

Comparing Assistant

Ct/Gd (M) Alaka Basumatary v. the Union of India and 5 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ct/Gd (M) Alaka Basumatary v. the Union of India and 5 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mitradev Mahanta Vs the State of Assam and 5 Ors.

Taleb Ali Sheikh Vs the State of Assam and 2 Ors.

Smti Gita Kalita Talukdar Vs the State of Assam and 2 Ors.

Rimlee Thakuria Vs State Bank of India and 8 Ors.

State Bank of India and 8 Ors. Vs Rimlee Thakuria

Fatema Khatun Vs the State of Assam and 3 Ors.