Biswajit Nayak Vs Union of India

Instant w rit petition is filed by the petitioner challe n ging the order transfer i. e . Annexure-3 on the ground stated and f u rther to direct the Auth o rity concerned allowing him to continu e in the Group Centre, C .R.P.F., Bhubaneswar for a period of on e year in order to facilita t e treatment of his ailing parents and for s u ch other reason stated.

¶14

Mr. M o hapatra, learned counsel for the petition e r would submit that the petitioner joined in service on 6^th October 2020 at Bhubaneswar a n d refers to Annexure-1 but in the meantime, has been transferre d by the decision as at Annexure-3 to 8 7 BN of Manipur. It is s u bmitted that such transfer of the petition e r should have been acco r ding to the transfer policy of the C.R.P.F. w hich has not been duly considered by opposite party No.2. It i s further submitted that under the pressing circumstances, such as, th e medical

¶15

P a ge 1 of 3

¶16

condition of the ailing parents, the petitioner has requ e sted for continuation of the service at Bhubaneswar in the Grou p Centre, C.R.P.F., Bhuba n eswar only for a period of one year a n d while claiming so, he refers to the copies of the medical pap e rs as at Annexures-4 series and 6 series. It is also claimed that the petitioner’s son is pursuing h is study in standard III in a school at Bhub a neswar, hence, therefor e , such transfer at the middle of the s e ssion is certainly to affe c t him as well.

¶17

Mr. Pa d hi, learned CGC appearing for the opposi t e parties on the other h a nd would submit that the petitioner ha s already overstayed seve n months beyond the normal period of p o sting i.e. 3 years comme n cing from 6^th October, 2020 and hence, t h erefore, the transfer ord e r is not to be disturbed. In reply and res p onse to the above, Mr. M ohapatra, learned counsel for the petition e r would submit that suc h transfer for a period of 3 years is to be counted from Summer C hain transfers which normally takes place in the month of Febr u ary of a particular year and hence, there f ore, the petitioner is enti t led to an extension by one year.

¶18

A copy of the transfer policy is not available with t h e Court at present. However, considering the submissions of learne d counsel for the respect i ve parties and since, the representatio n of the petitioner i.e. A n nexure-2 is still pending decision of oppo s ite party No.2, the Cou r t is of the view that the same should be duly examined as pe r the transfer policy of the C.R.P.F with a d e cision at the earliest in v iew of the fact that he has already bee n on the orders of transf e r vide Annexure-3 taking into account the grounds raised and plea a dvanced by him, such as, the medical con d ition of parents and edu c ational session of his son.

¶19

P a ge 2 of 3

¶20

6. Accordi n gly, it is ordered.

¶21

In the r esult, the writ petition stands disposed of with a direction to op p osite party No.2 to consider the represent a tion i.e. Annexure-2 rec e ived which said to have been submitte d by the petitioner in the meantime and if necessary, after providing an opportunity of personal hearing, to take a final decision on such transfer, an exercise which is to be concluded within ne x t fifteen days on being s e rved a copy of this order within next two working days and till s u ch time, not to give effect to the tran s fer vide Annexure-3 but t o keep it in abeyance vis-à-vis the petition e r only.