The authority must consider representations with sympathy and human touch, especially for employees nearing retirement, despite the lack of legally enforceable rights under the standing order.

U.B. Saha, J.

1. Heard Mr. Kh. Binoykumar, learned Counsel assisted by Miss Rosylyn, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Mr. K. Kumar, learned Addl. CGSC for the respondents.

2. Pleaded cases of the parties, deserved to be considered at the outset, are as under. Writ petitioner, who is presently working as Administrative Officer in the office of the Deputy Inspector General of Police (Administration) in the Central Reserve Police Force, Group Centre at Langjing (Imphal) and also presently, permanently settled at Bangalore in the State of Karnataka, being aggrieved by the order of Signal dated 05.04.2006 (Annexure-A/6 to the writ petition) wherein and whereunder choice posting of petitioner was cancelled and he is transferred from the present place of posting i.e. office of the DIG, Imphal to Group Centre, Nagpur, Western Sector, filed this writ petition on the grounds that the said Signal is contrary to the provisions of guidelines issued by the Director General, CRPF through its standing order No. 05/2003 (Annexure-A/9 to the writ petition), particularly, Sub-clause (b) and (c) of Clause 6 of the said standing order. This Court by order dated 24.04.2006 issued Rule made returnable within four weeks and also passed an interim ordered suspending the impugned Signal dated 05.04.2006 (Annexure-A/6 to the writ petition) until further orders. On 03.11.2006, after hearing the learned Counsel for the parties, this Court passed an order to the effect that 'at this stage is to require the petitioner to submit a representation to the concerned authority of the CRPF to give him his choice posting i.e. Bangalore as per the norms in force and thereafter to require the said authority to pass necessary orders on the said request of the petitioner. That the representation to be filed by the petitioner be understood by the respondents as the representation filed pursuant to this Court's order. Necessary orders on the said representation will be passed by the respondents within one week from the date of receipt of the representation'.

3. In compliance with this Court's order dated 03.11.2006, the petitioner made a representation to the appropriate authority and the appropriate authority, after considering the facts and circumstances raised in the representation, rejected the same. After rejection of the representation, the petitioner challenged the said order of the authority in the Misc. Application No. 341 of 2006, wherein the petitioner also prayed that the said C. Misc. application may be treated as a part of this writ petition.

4. Learned Counsel of the petitioner, Mr. Kh. Binoykumar submitted in support of the contention made in the writ petition that the transfer of the petitioner from Imphal to Nagpur is wholly contrary to the Standing order No. 05/2003 i.e. the transfer policy of Ministerial Staff, as issued by the Director General of CRPF, for the benefit of ministerial staff like the petitioner. He also submits that the petitioner had served at different places within his long tenure of 37 years and he is going to be retired on 31.07.2007, order of transfer vide the aforesaid Signal in a place, which is far away from his permanent residence at Bangalore and, wherein, his wife is staying and his sons and daughters are completing their studies. Mr. Binoykumar contended that an employee can expect from its employer, some human touch at the verge of retirement after serving the nation long 37 years. A choice posting either to his permanent place of residence or to that place so, that he can built his house for future settlement to serve his family members even for some period when he is in service and lead future life happily. He further contended the standing order is issued to provide some benefits to the employee like petitioner, which the authority denied to the petitioner herein, such an action is not warranted from the authority and the authority by its action violated the policy framed by it, which is not permissible under