The court considered the compelling circumstances of a complicated medical situation and the need for the petitioner's presence during the childbirth as justifying the retention of the petitioner in his current station for a limited period.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for a writ of Certiorified Mandamus to call for records relating to the impugned order of the second respondent in order No.01/2022 EST-BR-P2DA16- PER-DG dated 06.07.2022 and the consequential order issued in No.T.IX-17/2022-Estt-DA-4 dated 31.08.2022 and quash the same insofar as the petitioner is concerned and direct the respondents to retain him in Chennai so as to enable the petitioner to continue and complete the medical treatment for infertility as enumerated in the Central Reserve Police Force Standing Order No.07/15 dated 04.08.2015.)

1. The prayer sought for herein is for a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to quash the impugned order of the second respondent in order No.01/2022 EST-BR-P2DA 16-PER-DG dated 06.07.2022 and the consequential order issued in No.T.IX-17/2022-Estt-DA-4 dated 31.08.2022 insofar as the petitioner is concerned and direct the respondents to retain him in Chennai so as to enable the petitioner to continue and complete the medical treatment for infertility as enumerated in the Central Reserve Police Force Standing Order No.07/15 dated 04.08.2015.

2. The petitioner is working as Head Constable (GD) in the respondent police force viz., the Central Reserve Police Force at Avadi. In this station, lastly he had come in the year 2018. Now, by the impugned order dated 31.08.2022, his request for revisiting the transfer order already been made to the petitioner from Avadi to Jammu and Kashmir, has been rejected. Challenging the said rejection order as well as the transfer order, the petitioner has moved the present writ petition.

3. Mr.P.Manojkumar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner's wife, after a long time is in family way and as per the medical diagnosis and the report of the Doctor's concerned, the wife of the petitioner will give birth to the baby at the end of October, 2022, therefore, that is the main reason, for which, the petitioner wants to be either in Avadi or in any nearby station to look after the wife at the time of child birth, even that reason has been rejected, hence the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner seeks indulgence of this Court.

4. On the other hand, Mr.B.Rabu Manohar, learned Central Government Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents, on instructions, would submit that, the petitioner had been in this station for nearly about eight years. As in the earlier occasion, he has held for three to four years. Again from 2018, he is here i.e., at Avadi for more than four years. Therefore, if this reason is accepted and for the said purpose, if one year retention is given, there are hundreds of such people who are in the queue making the very same reason for retention in their existing places and in that case, there will be a complete paralyze in the very system under which, being a disciplined force the CRPF is functioning. Therefore, learned Central Government Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents stoutly oppose the move of the petitioner to seek the indulgence of this Court against the impugned order.

5. I have considered the said rival submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for both the parties and have perused the materials placed before this Court.

6. Insofar as the reasons cited by the petitioner that the petitioner's wife after a long time is in family way is concerned, since it seem to be a complicated case, at least at the time of child birth, the petitioner's presence must be there along with his wife.

7. The said reason given by the petitioner is appealing to this Court. Insofar as the time of child birth in a complicated case like this as projected by the petitioner, normally the husband of the wife, who will give child birth, is required to be present for all kinds of support to the mother as well as the baby.

8. In this context, this Court feels that the plea of the petitioner, not for the retention of one year as prayed by