1. The petitioner is an Assistant Sub Inspector/General Duty posted in the 171st Battalion of the Border Security Force, (1 “BSF”, hereinafter) at Silchar, Assam. His son, Satyendra Kumar, is in Delhi. Silchar is 2107 kms away from Delhi.

2. On the ground that his son was suffering from Muscular Dystrophy in his lower limbs and needed the petitioner’s assistance even for normal daily activities, the petitioner preferred a representation, praying that he be relocated to Delhi or posted at a place where facilities to treat his son were available. The petitioner suggested that he could be posted at Kolkata or Bangalore.

3. The petitioner had approached this Court by way of WP (C) 5125/2022 when he was posted at Delhi, challenging his transfer to Silchar. This Court, by order dated 12 September 2024, declined to interfere but extended the period for the petitioner to relocate from Delhi to Silchar till 31 January 2025. Liberty was, however, reserved with the petitioner to reapproach this Court should he come across any policy which could justify his continuance at Delhi.

4. Availing the liberty so granted, the petitioner filed CM Appl 4320/2025 and 4034/2025. In the said applications, the petitioner placed reliance on Office Memoranda, (2 “OMs” hereinafter) dated 7 September 2017 and 19 March 2018 issued by the Ministry of Home Affairs, (3 “MHA”, hereinafter) which provided that a Government servant, who was a care giver of a disabled child or a disabled dependent, could be exempted from the routine exercise of transfer or rotational transfers, subject to administrative constraints.

5. This Court, by order dated 31 January 2025, disposed of the said applications. Having heard learned counsel for both sides, this Court declined to permit further retention of the petitioner at Delhi. However, as the petitioner had advanced a submission that medical facilities to take care of his son were available at Kolkata and Bangalore, and that he would be satisfied if he was posted at one of the said two locations, this Court directed the respondents to consider posting of the petitioner at Kolkata or Bangalore subject to service exigencies, specifically extending a sympathetic consideration to the medical condition of the petitioner’s son. The respondents were permitted to communicate the decision taken by them to the petitioner within eight weeks.

6. In compliance with the said directions, the respondents have issued order dated 4 April 2025 rejecting the petitioner’s request for posting at Kolkata or Bangalore. The reasons for retention are contained in para 12 of the order, which reads thus :

“12. Whereas, in compliance of directions of the Hon'ble High Court passed vide their order dated 31.01.2025, the case of the petitioner has been examined in detail in the light of available records, governing rule positions, medical opinion and other facts & circumstances of his case and consequently, the following position is explained:

(i) The request of the petitioner for posting to Kolkata & Bangalore (Static locations) is beyond the purview of the provisions of the BSF (Tenure of Posting and Deputation) Rules, 2000, (4 “the 2000 Rules” hereinafter), and one of the Qualitative Requirements (ORs) for posting/transfer to static locations prescribed that is "the stipulation of 08 years cooling off period in all static to static cases".

(ii) The petitioner was posted at the STC BSF Hazaribagh wef 18.07.2014 to 24.06.2017 and further remained attached with DIG (HQ) FHQ wef 17.12.2018 to 22.01.2025 and, therefore, he is not eligible for posting to any static location for less cooling off period than 8 years as per policy circulated by Pers Die (Estt Sec) letter No. 6241-91 dated 10.04.2024.

(iii) The MHA have circulated guidelines vide OM No. A.12011/126/2014-Pers.III dated 19.03.2018 for posting of personnel of CAPFs & ARs who are caregivers to disabled dependents which stipulates that "a Government servant who is also a care-giver of disabled child/dependent