Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2022 Supreme(Manipur) 169

IN THE HIGH COURT OF MANIPUR AT IMPHAL
M.V. Muralidaran, J.
S. Kamginpao Vaiphei - Appellant
Versus
Union Of India & Ors. - Respondents
WP(C) No. 687 of 2022
Decided On : 06-09-2022

Advocates appeared:
Mr. M. Devananda, Advocate, for the Petitioner; Mr. BR Sharma, Sr. PCCG, for the Respondents

IMPORTANT POINT
The main legal point established in the judgment is that transfer orders must be in compliance with the relevant Standing Orders, and in cases of medical grounds, the authorities must consider the petitioner's case sympathetically and in accordance with the provisions of the Standing Order.

Headnote:
Transfer and Posting Order - Challenge to transfer and posting order - Standing Order No.07/2015 - Para 4(ix), 4(xvi)(b)(ii), 4(xvi)(vi), 4(xvi)(viii), 5(vii)
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner challenges the transfer and posting order dated 15.7.2022, citing medical grounds and violation of Standing Order No.07/2015. The petitioner seeks to set aside the order and continue his sector tenure in Manipur based Units/Bns of the Central Sector.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the transfer order was issued without considering the petitioner's medical condition and in contravention of the Standing Order. The court also noted that the transfer order was not given effect to till date and the petitioner's representation was not considered. The court allowed the writ petition and remitted the matter to the competent authorities for reconsideration.
Issues: Challenge to transfer and posting order, violation of Standing Order, failure to consider medical condition, lack of opportunity to express choice in SANTOS Application
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the transfer order was passed in contravention of the Standing Order, specifically Para 4(ix) and Paragraph 4(xvi)(b)(ii), (vi), (viii). The court also emphasized the need for the respondent authorities to consider the petitioner's case sympathetically, given his imminent retirement.
Final Decision: The writ petition was allowed, and the matter was remitted to the competent authorities for reconsideration, with specific directions to consider the petitioner's case in light of the Standing Order and the doctor's advice, address the defect in the SANTOS Application, and ensure compliance with the Standing Order in the transfer and posting process.

JUDGMENT

1. Heard Mr. M. Devananda, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. BR Sharma, learned Senior Central Government Standing Counsel for the respondents.

2. By consent, the main writ petition itself is taken up for disposal at the admission stage itself.

3. The challenge in this writ petition is to the transfer and posting order dated 15.7.2022 in respect of the petitioner, whose name finds place at S.No.8 of the list of incumbents. The petitioner seeks to set aside the same and allow the writ petition with a consequential direction to allow him to complete his sector tenure in Manipur based Units/Bns of the Central Sector as per Para 4(ix) of the Standing Order No.07/2015.

4. The facts in a nutshell are as under:

The petitioner entered as CT/GD in the year 2003, pursuant to the order of appointment dated 28.6.2003. He completed his basic training from the Group Centre Langjing from 28.6.2003 to 28.2.2005, thereafter, he was transferred and posted to 27 Bn at J&K (Srinagar), Manipur (INungba) and Delhi (Bawana Camp CRPF) where he discharged duties from 28.2.2005 to 13.6.2012. Thereafter, he was transferred and posted to 165 Bn located at West Bengal (Tangasole Salua Kharagpur) from 13.6.2012 to 28.3.2017 and to 109 Bn located at Mongsangei, Senapati, Training Node ChilChil and Mao, Manipur from 28.3.2017 to till date. By the impugned order, the petitioner was transferred to GC-Neemuch.

5. The case of the petitioner as put forth by learned counsel for the petitioner is that he was transferred and posted to the 109 Bn located at Mongsangei, Senapati Training Node ChilChil and Mao, Manipur with effect from 28.3.2017 and 109 Bn even though geo graphically located in Manipur, it is under the Central Sector and the petitioner is yet to complete the Sector Tenure of 10 years under the M&N Sector as prescribed in Para 4(ix) of the Standing Order No.07/2015. The petitioner's case is squarely covered by Para 4(xvi)(ii), (vi) and (viii) of the Standing Order for relaxation/exemption of transfer for one year, but that was not done and he was arbitrarily and illegal transferred to GC Neemuch under the Madhya Pradesh Sector in violation of the stipulations laid down in the Standing Order.

6. It is stated that aggrieved by the same, the petitioner submitted a representation on 21.7.2022 to the Commandant, 109 Bn seeking for personal interview of the Inspector General (Pers) stating the genuine problems being faced by the petitioner and his critical medical conditions. The said representation of the petitioner was not considered till date. That apart, as per Para No.4(ix) of the aforesaid Standing Order, a person can serve in a particular Range/Sector for maximum 10 years and in a particular Zone for 14 years, but the petitioner has not put in such length of service and, therefore, considering his illness, he may be permitted to continue at the present place to enable him to continue his medical treatment at Psychiatry Department, RIMS, Imphal. However, ignoring the aforesaid Standing Order, the transfer order has been effected in the case on hand.

7. The next plank of the argument is that the impugned order has been issued directly by the office of the Directorate General of CRPF, New Delhi, in contravention of the Standing Order No.07/2015, which stipulates that inter-zone transfers will be monitored by a Committee comprising DIG Estt and DIsG (Adm) of all zones as members to ensure fair balance across zones.

8. The submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that transfer of personnel are to be effect as per the provisions of Standing Order, but the respondent are illegally and arbitrarily transferred the personnel including the petitioner on the basis of the SANTOS guideline in contravention of the provision of the Standing Order. The SANTOS guideline cannot supersede or substitute the Standing Order as the Standing Order has not been modified/reviewed till date and that the rights of the petitioner under the provision of the Stand