Dismissed

N.Singaravelu v. The Inspector General of

Madras HC7 Aug 2017WP/986/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition under Article 226, a CRPF personnel sought forbearance from being posted to combatant duty and requested lighter duties as per Standing Orders. The Court held that transfer is an administrative prerogative, no legal right exists to a specific post or place, and Standing Orders on rehabilitation do not restrict transfer authority, dismissing the petition.

What the court decided

AI extract

N.Singaravelu Vs The Inspector General of — Service and Employment | Madras HC (2017)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED : 07.08.2017

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM

¶5

W.P.No.986 of 2016 & W.M.P.No.743 of 2016

¶6

N.Singaravelu, No.001375428 CT/GD, Quarters No.1016, Type-I Special, Group Centre, CRPF Campus, Avadi, Chennai-600 065. ..Petitioner Versus 1. The Inspector General of Police, Southern Sector, Central Reserve Police Force, Road No.10C, Jubilee Hills, Gayathri Hills, Hyderabad-500 033.

¶7

The Deputy Inspector General of Police, Group Centre, Central Reserve Police Force, Avadi, Chennai-600 065.

¶8

..Respondents

¶9

Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for the issuance of Writ of Mandamus, forbearing the respondents from posting the petitioner to combatant duty and further direct the respondents to provide lighter duties to him as enumerated in Standing Order No.7/99 dated 6.5.1999.

¶10

For Petitioner :M/s.J.Lakshmi Narayanan

¶11

For Respondents :Mr.L.Rajagopalan

¶12

The petitioner has come forward with this Writ Petition for forbearing the respondents from posting him to combatant duty and further direct the respondents to provide lighter duties to him as enumerated in Standing Order No.7/99 dated 6.5.1999.

¶13

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶14

2.The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the writ petitioner is working in Avadi, Chennai from 12.06.2010 and on 10.11.2015, the writ petitioner was informed that has been transferred to by the proceedings of the second respondent dated 08.11.2015 to 39^th Battaliion of the Central Reserve Police Force. The learned counsel appearing for the writ petitioner contended that during the year 2009, while he was serving in 2^nd Battalion, CRPF, on 20.06.2009, the Government Vehicle in which Jawans including the writ petitioner were travelling was blasted by the Naxalites at Kukwada, Chhattisgarh State and at that time, the petitioner sustained multiple injuries including fracture in the right shoulder joint, fracture in right knee joint and fracture with open would in right ankle. Therefore, he was provided with lighter duty at the Group Centre, Avadi and he was declared medically as Shape-5 i.e., he was disabled for combatant duty.

¶15

4.This affidavit was filed in the year 2016. The learned counsel appearing for the respondents contended that the petitioner was staying in GC, Avadi, Chennai from 12.06.2010 and by virtue of the interim order granted by this Court in the year 2016, the writ petitioner is continuing in the same station at Avadi, Chennai for about seven years from the date of his joining at Avadi.

¶16

5.The learned counsel appearing for the respondents submitted that since the writ petitioner is allowed to perform the SHAPE-5 category, he cannot claim immunity from administrative transfers. Administrative transfers are issued in respect of all the categories and the employees are placed under various categories and wherever they are posted, they will be allowed to perform the same duties and responsibilities assigned with the particular category. Such being the case, there is no reason whatsoever to challenge the order of transfer by the writ petitioner. This apart, the counsel for the respondents stated that administrative transfers are routine orders issued in the interest of administration and any intervention in the administrative transfers will certainly hamper the peaceful running of the very administration. Transfer order is independent and rehabilitation programme in favour of the writ petitioner is unconnected with the impugned order of transfer, which was issued on administrative grounds.

¶17

6.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that the Standing Order No.4 of 2011 dated 27^th July, 2011, stipulates about the rehabilitation of Force Personnel. Class-A provides that those who are disabled due to injuries sustained inaction against terrorist/anti-social elements/insurgents/naxalities/while maintaining law & order/internal security/undergoing training or any other

¶18

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶19

bonafide duty. Further, the Board should examine a person with regard to his physical/mental capability, aptitude, job requirements etc., and after assessing the capability and health condition of the person, recommended to be whether he/she can be rehabilitated within the Force by assigning the jobs mentioned in para-7 & 8 of the Standing Order. Paragraph No.7 of the Standing Order stipulates for the job, based on the recommendation of the Board to be provided to the employees for rehabilitation.

¶20

7.On a perusal of the entire Standing Orders, this Court is of the opinion that the Standing Order relating to rehabilitation of Force personnel is no where connected with the transfer of a personnel from one place to another place. Rehabilitation is one aspect and the transfer of a personnel is another aspect. Rehabilitation of the employee is very much required especially in Uniformed Services, when they suffer certain injuries during the course of performing their duties. But, transfer can never be the right and the place and post can never be claimed as a right.

¶21

8.Under the Standing Orders, rehabilitation can be claimed by the personnel when they sustained injuries during the course of performing their duties. But, place and post can never be claimed as a matter of legal right. On rehabilitation or during the course of rehabilitation, if the Board finds that a particular persons is eligible to perform certain kind of light duty, then it is for the authorities to allot such light duties and post him in the appropriate place. In such circumstances, no personnel in the Uniformed Service can claim that either he should be posted in Chennai or any other place of his choice. In other words, choice of post or place are certainly not available to the public servants.

¶22

9.Thus, the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the writ petitioner that as per the Standing Orders issued on rehabilitation of Force Personnel, the writ petitioner ought to have been accommodated only at Avadi, Chennai, deserves to be rejected. However, it is for the authorities to find out the nature of concession to be shown to a particular employee and accordingly, allot him any place or post. The Constitutional Courts cannot interfere with the day-today administration so as to cause any chaos in the running of the administration in a peaceful manner. Further, Standing Order No.4/2011 dated 27^th July, 2011, never prevents the authorities from transferring and posting a personnel from one place to another place. Contrarily, it provides a scheme for rehabilitation of Force personnel, which is to be undertaken by the competent authorities and this Court has no second opinion in this regard. All the personnel who sustained certain injuries on account of performing their duties has to be shown indulgence in providing

¶23

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶24

rehabilitation in respect of the job responsibilities, but, not in respect of transfer and posting.

¶25

10.This being the view of this Court, all these Standing Orders are the subject matters to be considered only by the competent authorities and this Court may not be in a position to go into those factual aspects and decide whether the writ petitioner should be allowed to continue only in Avadi, Chennai or not. Furthermore, the writ petitioner is continuing in Avadi, Chennai, for about seven years and further continuance is certainly not desirable, since he is working in a disciplined Uniformed Force, i.e. CRPF.

¶26

11.Transfer of an employee is a prerogative power vested with the competent authority. It is for the competent authority to decide how and where to post the personnel for effective administration. The writ petitioner being an employee of an uniformed service has to abide by the administrative orders more specifically of transfers.

¶27

12.In respect of medical treatments, this Court can easily able to presume that adequate medical facilities will be certainly available in all the State Head Quarters or nearby places. Intervention in administrative transfers will not only cause inconvenience to the administration, but also amounts to preventing the opportunity of other employees to come over to their native places. Administrative transfer policies are implemented in the interest of the department, more so, in the uniformed services, in order to maintain discipline and good conduct. Periodical transfers of uniformed personnel are highly essential. Keeping an uniformed personnel in one place may create issues relating to others' right to come over to their native places or any native States. CRPF being a disciplined force, has to maintain such a disciplined conduct throughout in the interest of our great nation. This apart, all the Standing Orders and the Guidelines in this regard are instructions to be followed and no Standing Order prohibits the competent authority from issuing administrative transfer and posting.

¶28

13.This Court is very much conscious that administrative transfers are allowed to be implemented in the interest of administration. It is not for the Courts to interfere or exercise the power of judicial review in the matter of transfers. Only on exceptional circumstances i.e. to say in the event of violation of any statutory rules, the power of judicial review can be exercised and not otherwise. Violation of certain guidelines /instructions given in the form of circular or orders, will not confer any legal right on the employees. In other words, the circulars and orders of the Government with regard to the guidelines issued for implementing transfers will not confer any right on the employees. Certain concessions are

¶29

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶30

provided in order to make the employees more accommodative and for effective functioning of the administration. Thus, it is for the competent authorities to consider all these aspects in respect of the personal grievances of the employees, while effecting transfers. Such being the legal principles on transfers, this Court is of the undoubted opinion that the administrative transfers cannot be challenged by way of writ petition and this Court has to be conscious, while exercising the judicial review against the orders of administrative transfers.

¶31

14.A Government servant holding a transferable post, has no vested right to remain posted at one place or the other and he is liable to be transferred from one place to the other. Transfer orders issued by the competent authority do not violate any of his legal right. Even if a transfer order is passed in violation of executive instructions or orders, the Courts ordinarily should not interfere with the order, instead the affected party should approach the higher authorities of the department. If Courts continue to interfere with day-to-day transfer orders issued by the Government and its sub-ordinate authorities, there will be complete chaos in the administration, which would not be conducive to public interest. The Courts need not overlook these aspects while interfering with the orders of transfers.

¶32

15.In the case on hand, by virtue of an interim order granted by this Court, the writ petitioner is continuously working in Avadi, Chennai, for about seven years. In fact, it is not preferable to allow the writ petitioner to continue in Avadi, Chennai, any further. Thus, the writ petition and the grounds raised therein deserve no merit consideration.

¶33

Accordingly, the writ petition stands dismissed. However, there is no order as to costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

¶34

rpa

¶35

¶36

The Inspector General of Police, Southern Sector, Central Reserve Police Force, Road No.10C, Jubilee Hills, Gayathri Hills, Hyderbad-500 033.

¶37

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶38

The Deputy Inspector General of Police, Group Centre, Central Reserve Police Force, Avadi, Chennai-600 065.

¶39

+1cc to Mr.J.Lakshmi Narayan,Advocate sr.57160

¶40

+1cc to P.Saravanan,.Advocate sr.57544

¶41

W.P.No.986 of 2016
ss(1/9/2017)

¶42

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

N.Singaravelu v. The Inspector General of

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

N.Singaravelu v. The Inspector General of

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M.Murugesan Vs The Additional Director of

R.Revathi Vs The Additional Director of

S.Santhanaraman Vs The Registrar of Coop.

P.Subramaniyan Vs The Government of Tamil Nadu

S.Sreekanth Vs The Inspector General of

N.Ramesh, Vs The Deputy Inspector