Allowed

Sri P Nagarajan v. Union of India

Karnataka HC4 Sept 2024WP/11339/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution, a petitioner contended that he must be transferred to Bengaluru for the benefit of his son's education on retirement grounds. The Court, finding vacancies available in Bengaluru, disposed of the petition by directing respondents to transfer the petitioner to a post at Electronic City, Bengaluru.

What did the court decide?

Directing respondent Nos. 1 to 4 to issue transfer orders transferring the petitioner from Mysuru to a post at Electronic City, Bengaluru within one week.

Sri P Nagarajan Vs Union of India — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

1 - NC: 2024:KHC:36123 WP No. 11339 of 2024

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 4^TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2024

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R. NATARAJ WRIT PETITION NO. 11339 OF 2024 (S-TR)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

SRI. P. NAGARAJAN S/O LATE SRI A. PANDI AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, WORKING AS ASI/EXE, HAVING CISF NO.874460078 WORKING AT CISF UNIT RMP, MYSURU-571130.

¶8

…PETITIONER

¶9

(BY SRI. PRASHANTH H.S., ADVOCATE)

¶10

AND:

¶11

Digitally signed by MARKONAHALLI RAMU PRIYA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶12

UNION OF INDIA MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS NORTH BLOCK CENTRAL SECRETARIAT NEW DEHI-110001 REP. BY SECRETARY

¶13

THE DIRECTOR GENERAL CISF HEADQUARTERS, NO.13, CGO COMPLEX, LODHI ROAD, NEW DELHI-110003.

¶14

THE INSPECTOR GENERAL DAE AND DOS HEAD QUARTER SECTOR, CISF HEADQUARTERS, MAHIPALPUR, NEW DELHI-110037

¶15

THE ASST. COMMANDANT CENTRAL INDUSTRIAL SECURITY FORCE UNIT, CISF UNIT RMP,

¶16

¶17

NC: 2024:KHC:36123 WP No. 11339 of 2024

¶18

MYSORE-571130 REPRESENTED BY ITS ASST COMMANDANT

¶19

…RESPONDENTS

¶20

(BY SMT. SWATI L KAMAT, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NOS.1 TO 4)

¶21

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE OFFICE MEMORANDUM DATED 12.03.2024, BEARING LETTER NO.E38014/CISF/RMP/PRASHA/STA/2024/626, ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.4 VIDE ANNEXURE-A AND CONSEQUENTLY ISSUE A WRIT OF MANDAMUS OR ANY DIRECTION OR ORDER DIRECTING RESPONDENTS TO TRANSFER THE PETITIONER TO ANY OF CISF UNITS AT BENGALURU AND ETC.,

¶22

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R. NATARAJ

¶23

ORAL ORDER

¶24

The petitioner has challenged the office memorandum dated 12.03.2024 bearing No.38014/CISF/RMP/PRASHA/STA/2024/626 issued by

¶25

respondent No.4 and consequently sought for a writ in the nature of mandamus to transfer the petitioner to any CISF units at Bengaluru.

¶26

The petitioner contends that he joined the Central Industrial Security Force, as a constable and had worked at various locations in home zone and out of the home zone

¶27

¶28

NC: 2024:KHC:36123 WP No. 11339 of 2024

¶29

sectors. After completing the out of home zone postings and before his retirement, he was entitled to be posted at the home zone sector. The petitioner made a request for posting at CISF unit RMP Mysuru and accordingly he was posted at CISF Unit RMP, Mysuru. The petitioner contends that he is due to retire on 30.10.2025. The petitioner contends that his son is presently pursuing Bachelor of Business Administration in Dayanandsagar University, Kumarswamy Layout, Bengaluru and he has one more year of study before he completes his degree. The petitioner contends that his son is staying in a paying guest accommodation from the date of his transfer to Mysuru and that his son is averse to staying at a paying guest accommodation. The petitioner contends that his son is therefore not able to concentrate on studies due to which his education prospects are at distress. He contends that he has applied for the transfer to any of CISF units at Bengaluru on retirement cum education grounds without claiming TA and DA. The said application was rejected by respondent No.3 by order dated 06.01.2023. Thereafter, on the anvil of general transfer in the year 2023, the petitioner again submitted a fresh representation on 27.03.2023 to the respondent No.3 which was again rejected. The petitioner thereafter approached the

¶30

4 - NC: 2024:KHC:36123 WP No. 11339 of 2024

¶31

respondent No.2 seeking for request transfer on education cum retirement grounds and agreed that he would not claim any TA and DA. The respondent No.2 accepted the representation of the petitioner and forwarded it to respondent No.3. The DIG of DAE Zone I Hyderabad Zone recommended and forwarded the representation of the petitioner for appropriate action by respondent No.3. However, respondent No.3 again rejected the request of the petitioner vide the impugned order dated 12.03.2024. The petitioner contends that many persons such as the petitioner who were not even on the verge of retirement were permitted to continue in URSC Bengaluru for more than two terms. The petitioner contends that respondent No.3 rejected the request of the petitioner ignoring the directions of respondent No.2. The petitioner therefore, filed W.P No.21285/2023 (S-TR) before this Court for appropriate directions and the same was disposed off directing the petitioner to submit a representation to the respondents, who are directed to consider the representation to pass appropriate orders. Following this order, the petitioner has given a representation dated 01.01.2024, that too was rejected in terms of the order dated 05.03.2024. The petitioner is therefore before this Court challenging the said order.

¶32

5 - NC: 2024:KHC:36123 WP No. 11339 of 2024

¶33

The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner is on verge of retirement and therefore, the respondent No.3 was bound to consider the request of the petitioner for posting at any CISF units in Bengaluru. The petitioner was earlier posted within the home zone sector at Mysuru on his request and that the petitioner could have conveniently asked for a posting in Bengaluru instead of Mysuru. He therefore, submits that the respondent No.3 committed an error in not considering the request of transfer of the petitioner to Bengaluru. He also submits that several vacant posts are available in Bengaluru where the petitioner can be accommodated in view of the difficulty faced by his son.

¶34

Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents placed on record the instructions obtained from the respondents which indicate that the petitioner had already served 12.7 years in his Home State - Tamilnadu and 08 years in Bengaluru. It is contended that as per the transfer policy, the persons can be considered for transfer to the home sector in his last tenure provided vacancies are available. It is also contended that as per the posting guidelines, a person is permitted an extension in his or her present unit for one year if

¶35

6 - NC: 2024:KHC:36123 WP No. 11339 of 2024

¶36

his/her ward is studying in 10^th or 12^th class in that academic year and staying at the place of posting. However, such extension would not be given beyond one year. It is claimed that the son of petitioner is pursuing BBA and therefore, he is not entitled to the benefits under the posting guidelines. It is also contended that the petitioner had earlier submitted a representation requesting to change the place of posting from HWP, Mangaluru to RMP, Mysuru on retirement grounds and this request was considered by the Inspector General/DAE and DOS Head Quarter, New Delhi and ordered for posting at RMP, Mysuru vide order dated 19.05.2022. Therefore, it is contended that the petitioner cannot seek posting at Bengaluru.

¶37

Having regard to the difficulties pleaded by the petitioner and in view of the fact that his posting at Mysuru was at his choice and that he had an option to seek for a posting at Bengaluru, this Court called upon respondent Nos.1 to 4 to ascertain whether the petitioner could be accommodated in any suitable post in Bengaluru in any nearby location.

¶38

The learned counsel for the respondent Nos.1 to 4

¶39

has today submitted that there are 05 posts at U.R.Rao Satellite Centre, Bengaluru, 02 posts at Electronic city,

¶40

¶41

NC: 2024:KHC:36123 WP No. 11339 of 2024

¶42

Bengaluru and 227 posts at Bengaluru Airport, where the petitioner could be posted.

¶43

The learned counsel for the petitioner prayed that the petitioner be transferred to Electronic city, Bengaluru.

¶44

In that view of the matter, this writ petition is disposed off, directing the respondent Nos.1 to 4 to issue appropriate transfer orders transferring the petitioner from Mysuru to Bengaluru at a post Electronic City, Bengaluru within a period of one week from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. If such an order is issued, the petitioner may report at such post.

¶45

Sd/(R. NATARAJ) JUDGE

¶46

¶47

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 36

Sri P Nagarajan v. Union of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri P Nagarajan 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri Prakash M Dhareshwara Vs the State of Karnataka

B.V. Veena Vs State of Karnataka

Ramappa Vs the Government of Karnataka

Karnataka Handloom Development Corporation Retired Employees Welfare Association (R) Vs the State of Karnataka

Siddalinga Murthy Vs Chief Secretary

Dr Vasudevan S N Vs State of Karnataka