IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.GIRI TUESDAY, THE 8TH JULY 2008 / 17TH ASHADHA 1930 WP(C).No. 18112 of 2008(F) ----------------------------------------- PETITIONER: --------------------- H.A.BHOVI, NO.861350461 CONSTABLE, CISF UNIT, CPT , COCHIN. BY ADV. SRI.G.SASIDHARAN CHEMPAZHANTHIYIL RESPONDENTS: ------------------------- 1. THE COMMANDANT, CISF UNIT, CPT, COCHIN 2. THE D.I.G., CISF, SOUTHERN SECTOR, CHENNAI. 3. THE DIRECTOR GENERAL, CISF HEAD QUARTERS, BLOCK NO.13, CGO COMPLEX, LODHI ROAD, NEW DELHI. BY ADV. SRI.P.PARAMESWARAN NAIR,ASST.SOLICITOR GENERAL THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 08/07/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss WPC.NO.18112/2008 F APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1: COPY OF THE RELEVANT PORTION OF THE TRANSFER ORDER DTD. 02/04/2008 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT. EXT.P2: REPRESENTATION DTD. 4/04/2008TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT. EXT.P3: COPY OF THE MEDICAL CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE MEDICAL OFFICER. EXT.P4: COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE DTD. 3/04/2008 ISSUED BY THE KENDRIYA VIDYALAYA PORT TRUST. EXT.P5: COPY OF THE REQUEST DTD. 16/06/2008 TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT. EXT.P6: COPY OF THE O.M.NO.E-28014/CISF/CPT/IZT-2008-2624 DTD. 14/06/2008 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: N I L /TRUE COPY/ P.S.TO JUDGE Kss V.GIRI, J. ------------------------- W.P.(C).No.18112 of 2008 F ------------------------- Dated this the 8th day of July, 2008. JUDGMENT The petitioner, who is working as a Constable in the CISF Unit of Cochin Port Trust, is aggrieved by his transfer to CISF Unit, UCIL, Jaduguda, in the State of Uttar Pradesh. 2. The petitioner commenced his service in January, 1987 and apparently, he has got 15 years of service, including continuous service in the CISF Unit at Cochin Port Trust. When under Ext.P1 the petitioner was intimated that he is proposed to be transferred, as mentioned above, he submitted Ext.P2 representation addressed to the 3rd respondent, Director General, CISF Headquarters, New Delhi, requesting that his transfer be deferred for a period of one year, citing the fact that his daughter Ms.A.Asha is prosecuting her studies in Class XII at Kendriya Vidyalaya, Cochin Port Trust, in the Academic Year 2008-09. Apparently, the request was considered by the Director General. Though the contents of the letter was stated to have been communicated to the petitioner, he denied the same. In the meanwhile, W.P.(C).NO.18112/08 :: 2 :: he has been served with a movement order and it is then that he has approached this court. 3. A counter affidavit has been filed by the respondents and a reply affidavit has also been filed by the petitioner. 4. There are certain facts which will have to be treated as either admitted or not controverted. Firstly, the petitioner has 14 years of service in South Zone and 4 years in the North Zone. The petitioner belongs to the State of Karnataka. Secondly, the petitioner joined the Cochin Port Trust in July, 2004 and now 4 years have passed. Thirdly, the petitioner had successfully requested for deferment of his transfer from Cochin Port Trust in 2006-07. It is stated in the counter affidavit that in the year 2005, when the petitioner was proposed to be transferred, he pleaded that his daughter was prosecuting her studies in 10th standard. Therefore, he pleaded for one more year to be retained in Cochin. Deferment of one year was granted considering his request at that time. Again, in the Inter Zonal Transfer 2007, though he was proposed to be transferred, he requested W.P.(C).NO.18112/08 :: 3 :: for deferment of his transfer on the premise that his son was studying in 10th standard. Apparently, his request was accepted. Now, when he is sought to be transferred, he has again come up with a request on the basis that his daughter is prosecuting her studies in the 12th standard. The respondents submit that there are several other persons waiting for a posting in home-zone and the petitioner has outstayed his normal tenure. 5. I heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned standing counsel for the respondents. 6. I do not find any ground to interfere with the order of transfer as such. Further, I take note of the fact that the petitioner was proposed to be transferred twice earlier and his requests for deferment of the same were apparently accepted by the respondents. The request of a similar nature has not found favour with the respondents for the current year. I cannot say that the respondent have acted arbitrarily. It is true that the petitioner is visited with certain degree of hardship if he is W.P.(C).NO.18112/08 :: 4 :: transferred at this stage, but it is always so in the case paramilitary services like the CISF units. 7. In the result, I do not find any reason to issue any direction to cancel the petitioner's transfer already effected. But, I direct the respondents to permit the petitioner to be retained at the CISF Unit of Cochin Port Trust till 20.07.2008 to enable to him to make arrangements for the stay of his family. Writ petition is disposed of, subject to the above. Sd/- (V.GIRI) JUDGE sk/ //true copy//