IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC TUESDAY, THE 10TH NOVEMBER 2009 / 19TH KARTHIKA 1931 WP(C).No. 28375 of 2009(N) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------- R.SANTHOSH KUMAR (895022448) CISF GOURP HEAD QUARTERS, COCHIN, KENDRIYABHAVAN, KAKKANAD, NOW RESIDING AT CPWD QUARTERS, QUARTER NO.B1,ATHANI,KAKKANAD, KOCHI. BY ADV. SMT.SOUMINI JAMES RESPONDENT(S): ------------------- 1. DIRECOR GENERAL, CISF, HEADER QUARTERS, NEW DELHI. 2. INSPECTOR GENERAL,CISF, SOUTH SECTION, CHENNAI. 3. DEPTY INSPECTOR GENERAL,CISF, SOUTH ZONE , CHENNAI. 4. GROUP COMMANDANT,CISF, GROUP HEAD QUARTERS, KOCHI. 5. VIDYADHARAN, ASSISTANT COMMANDANT, CISF, GROUP HEAD QUARTERS,KENDRIYA BHAVAN, KAKKANAD, KCOHI. ADV. SRI.T.P.M.IBRAHIM KHAN,ASST.SOLICITOR FOR R1 TO 4 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 10/11/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ================ W.P.(C) NO. 28375 OF 2009 (N) ===================== Dated this the 10th day of November, 2009 J U D G M E N T Petitioner is a Constable working in the Central Industrial Security Force. He was transferred to Neyveli. By Ext.P2, on his request, the same was ordered to be deferred till May 2010. Petitioner states that such an order was passed taking into account the ailment of his mother who is a cancer patient. Ext.P1 is the medical certificate that is relied on by the petitioner in support of this plea. 2. However, by Ext.P5, Ext.P2 was ordered to be withdrawn and the reason stated is “administrative reasons”. Petitioner submits that Ext.P5 was issued at a time when Ext.P3 application submitted by him for voluntary retirement was pending. According to the petitioner, during the pendency of an application for voluntary retirement, in terms of the guidelines applicable to the CISF, an employee is liable to be excluded from transfer. It is also stated that going by Ext.P7 guidelines, though CISF personnel cannot be allowed to serve in their home state for more than two consecutive tenures, an exception has been made WPC 28375/09 :2 : in cases where family members are suffering serious ailments. It is stated that since his mother is seriously ill as certified in Ext.P1, he is entitled to be excluded from transfer for that reason as well. 3. A statement has been filed by the respondents. Although the plea of administrative exigency mentioned in Ext.P5 has been reiterated, no explanation is stated as to what were the administrative exigencies which led them to cancel Ext.P2 order. 4. In so far as the plea of the petitioner that during the pendency of the application for voluntary retirement, an applicant is liable to be excluded from transfer, in the statement filed by the respondents, they have stated that in terms of the provisions of the CCS Pension Rules, only a person who has completed 20 years of qualifying service is eligible for voluntary retirement and that the petitioner will be completing 20 years of service only in December, 2009. True, the Guidelines provided an exception to those who have applied for voluntary retirement. But, to be eligible for such exception, one should be eligible for voluntary retirement. Therefore, if an applicant is ineligible for the benefit of voluntary retirement in terms of the Rules, the fact that he has made application, cannot stand in the way of the authorities from WPC 28375/09 :3 : transferring them. 5. Petitioner has a case that the petitioner in WP(C) No.10752/09 in which Ext.P9 judgment was rendered by this Court also had made the application for voluntary retirement prior to completion of minimum required qualifying service of 20 years and that he was excluded from transfer. However, the pleadings in the writ petition does not contain an allegation to that effect and therefore, I am not persuaded to consider that plea of the petitioner. 6. However, there is substance in the contention of the petitioner that Ext.P7 the service order provides that although no personnel will be allowed to serve in their home state for more than two consecutive tenures except in exceptional cases such as a family member or the individual concerned suffering from serious ailments. In this case, it is the specific case of the petitioner that his mother is a cancer patient and Ext.P1 certificate relied on by the petitioner also supports his case. 7. If as a matter of fact, on account of the ailment of his mother, if he is eligible for the benefit of the exception provided in Ext.P7, there is no reason why the same should not have been WPC 28375/09 :4 : extended to the petitioner. However, the claim of the petitioner relying on Exts.P1 and P7 is not seen addressed by the respondents while issuing Ext.P5. Therefore, the matter needs to be reconsidered by the 2nd respondent, who has issued Ext.P5. Therefore, I dispose of this writ petition directing that the 2nd respondent will consider the eligibility of the petitioner to be retained at Cochin in view of Ext.P7 guidelines and Ext.P1 medical certificate relied on by the petitioner. The matter shall be considered and order shall be passed as expeditiously as possible, at any rate within 6 weeks of receipt of a copy of this judgment and in the meanwhile, status quo as on date will be maintained. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE Rp