IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ANOOP V. MOHTA & V.L. ACHLIYA, JJ.
Colonel Anil Kumar Sharma – Petitioner
Versus
Union of India – Respondent
Writ Petition No. 1394 of 2015
Decided On : 26.8.2015
Transfer Posting - Indian Army Officer - [Army Act, 1950 - Section 20, Army Rules, 1954 - Rule 13] - The court discussed the petitioner's medical condition, the availability of medical facilities at the place of posting, and the authority's discretion in transfer and posting decisions. The court highlighted the limited scope of interference by the courts in transfer and postings of members of the armed forces and emphasized the authority's discretion in such matters. The court directed the respondents to decide the representations of the petitioner afresh, considering the petitioner's medical condition and family circumstances.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a commissioned infantry officer in the Indian Army, challenged the order of transfer and posting due to his serious medical condition and sought consideration for last leg posting. The respondents opposed the reliefs claimed, stating that the transfer was made as per routine administrative exercise and that all required medical facilities were available at the place of posting.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the transfer and posting of the petitioner were in accordance with the rules and regulations governing the transfer and postings of officers and employees. The court emphasized the limited scope of interference by the courts in transfer and postings of members of the armed forces and directed the respondents to decide the representations of the petitioner afresh, considering the petitioner's medical condition and family circumstances.
Issues: The issues involved the petitioner's challenge to the transfer and posting order, the availability of medical facilities at the place of posting, and the consideration of the petitioner's representations on compassionate grounds and for last leg posting.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the transfer and posting of a government servant holding a transferable post is at the discretion of the concerned authority and that the courts should be extremely slow in interfering with such decisions. The court emphasized that the availability of medical facilities at the place of posting cannot be the sole basis to reject a request made on medical grounds and directed the respondents to consider the representations of the petitioner afresh, taking into account the petitioner's medical condition and family circumstances.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the petition challenging the transfer and posting order but directed the respondents to decide the representations of the petitioner afresh, considering the petitioner's medical condition and family circumstances. The court also directed the respondents not to implement the impugned order of transfer and posting until the representations are decided and communicated to the petitioner.
V.L. ACHLIYA, J.
1. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. By consent of the parties, taken up for final disposal.
2. The Petitioner has challenged the order of transfer and posting dated 26th February 2015 as well as inaction on the part of the respondents in deciding the representation made by the petitioner on 11th of March, 2015 seeking Last Leg Posting.
3. Before adverting to appreciate the submissions advanced, it is necessary to consider few facts leading to filing of this petition:-
(a) The Petitioner claims to be a permanent commissioned infantry officer serving in the Indian Army since 8th of June 1985. According to the Petitioner, he has rendered 30 years unblemished service. He is due for retirement in the month of July 2017. He was posted in Mumbai since 1st of September 2011 as “MCO, C.S.T., Mumbai”. On 1 January 2014 he was hospitalized in INHS Aswini, at Colaba, Mumbai i.e. Respondents' Military Hospital, as he experienced a sudden rise in his blood pressure and gastric problems. According to petitioner INHS Aswini provides the best facilities in the country for neurological disorders.
(b) On 6th January 2014, after various tests, the doctors detected multiple abscesses and oedema in the petitioner's brain. The Petitioner underwent a craniotomy on 8th January 2014 and part of Petitioner's skull was sliced and kept in his abdomen pouch for preservation. He was in ICU for about 20 days. He was placed on DI List (dangerously ill list). Petitioner had to live without part of his skull bone for three months. Finally, on 1st April 2014, the petitioner underwent cranioplasty to reinsert the petitioner's skull bone into his skull with titanium plates and screws at the same hospital. The Petitioner was specifically informed by Doctors treating him that he would be required to be under treatment and observation for the next two to three years. Therefore, petitioner addressed a letter dated 29th April, 2014 to the Integrated HQ of MoD, in which he requested the authority to continue him in Mumbai, on compassionate ground on account of his serious illness. However, he received no response to that letter. Taking into account the petitioner's medical condition, Senior Most Officer of M & G Area made recommendation vide letter dated 12th May, 2014 that the Petitioner be side-stepped to a local posting so that he could continue his treatment at INHS Aswini. There was no response. Therefore, petitioner made several representations to the concerned authorities to continue him in Mumbai. Due to above stated medical problems, the Petitioner was required to appear before the Medial Board. The Board reached the finding that the petitioner's intercranial abscesses and surgeries were attributable to service and, therefore, issued employment restrictions to prevent aggravation of his illness. The petitioner was directed to be under periodic surveillance by a Specialist at MH/Civil Hospital, where such facility is available to monitor his condition. The Board has further recommended that petitioner be given restricted diet and declared unfit for high attitude climates, terrians, extreme exertion and competitive sports. He was declared to be fit for only sedentary or desk job.
(c) Vide letter of 17th January, 2015 the Petitioner was informed that his application to continue in Mumbai has been rejected mainly on the ground that his compassionate grounds were considered earlier and the option for medical treatments were available at other stations, apart from the fact that he had spent a total period of three years and five months in Mumbai. Since the fact that options for medical treatment were available at other stations did not change the fact that the petitioner was in the midst of treatment at INHS Aswini and the doctors at that particular facility could administer the necessary treatment to the petitioner, the petitioner sent a reply letter dated 28th January, 2015 expressing his wish that his problem be taken seriously.
(d)
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.