IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO WRIT PETITION NO : 11538 of 2009 Between: M.Laxmaiah S/o.M.Subbanna (Force No.941160189) Occ: Serving No.99 Rapid Action Force of CRPF, R/o.No.99 RAF/CRPF, Hakimpet, J.J.Nagar, Secunderabad - 500078. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Government of India, represented by its Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs, South Block, New Delhi 110001. 2 The Director General of Police, Central Reserve Police Force, CGO Complex, Lodi Road, New Delhi 110003. 3 The Inspector General of Police, Rapid Action Force of CRPF, RK Puram, New Delhi 110066. 4 The Commandant 99RAF/CRPF, Hakimpet Post, J.J.Nagar, Secunderabad - 500 078. 5 The Officer Commanding, B Company of 99 RAF (Rapid Action Force of CRPF) Hakimpet, J.J.Nagar, Secunderabad - 500 078. .....RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to to issue a Writ order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus, declaring the proceedings No. T-IX-4/09-99-EC-I dated 8-5-2009 issued by the 4th Respondent with the direction to relieve the petitioner on transfer in accordance to 2nd respondent proceedings dated 6.4.2009 to No.78 CRPF Batalion at Short Notice as arbitrary, unjust and illegal and consequently set aside the same and pass. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.NARINDER PAL SINGH Counsel for the Respondent No.: MR.A.RAJASHEKAR REDDY (ASST SOLICITOR GEN) The Court made the following : HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO WRIT PETITION No.11538 of 2009 ORDER: This Writ Petition has been instituted by a General Duty Constable of the Central Reserve Police Force, which is an armed force, questioning the legality and validity of the orders passed on 08- 05-2009 subjecting him along with several others to transfer. 2. The case of the writ petitioner is that while he was working at Delhi, he made a request to the competent authority to transfer him to Hyderabad, so as to enable him to secure treatment to his mentally challenged child at the National Institute for the Mentally Handicapped at Secunderabad. Accordingly, the writ petitioner has been transferred to Hyderabad center during April/May, 2006. 3. As soon as the personnel completes three years of service at one station, orders will be issued shifting them and transferring them to various other places. While carrying out such an exercise, the writ petitioner was also transferred to Nagaland along with several others. The case of the petitioner is that the impugned order of transfer will visit him with penal and grave consequences, inasmuch as he will not be able to take care of his mentally challenged child, who is receiving treatment at the National Institute for the Mentally Handicapped at Secunderabad. 4. Upon a suggestion made by this Court, the learned Assistant Solicitor General has secured instructions and submits today that the respondent authorities are willing to allot a quarter at the Group Center, Ranga Reddy, so as to enable the family members of the writ petitioner to stay for a minimum period of one year, so that the mentally challenged child of the writ petitioner can continue to receive the treatment from the National Institute for the Mentally Handicapped at Secunderabad. 5. The orders of transfer, which are purely administrative in nature, are the result of incidence of service. No employee, particularly serving the armed forces, can have any right to serve or work only at one particular station. The writ petitioner had completed a reasonable length of service of three years at Hyderabad. Therefore, it is for the authorities to consider whether he should be retained any longer or he should be subjected to a transfer. So long as such exercise is not tainted by any malice either in law or in fact, such administrative order seldom calls for any interference by this Court. 6. In the instant case, I do not find any reason whatsoever to interfere with the orders of transfer. However, it is open to the authorities to consider the feasibility of transferring and posting the writ petitioner to any other place, which can be nearer to Hyderabad, so as to enable him to take care of his family, in view of the peculiar fact situation prevailing in the instant case. 7. Upon a request being made by the writ petitioner for allotment of a quarter, I have no doubt that the respondents will allot the quarter immediately, at any rate within a week from the date of receipt of any such request from the writ petitioner and permit his family members to retain the quarter for atleast one year period, subject to payment of the normal rent and other charges liable to be paid by the employees of the rank of the writ petitioner. 8. With this, the Writ Petition stands disposed of at the admission stage. No costs. ________________________________ NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO, J 18th June, 2009 pn/ksld HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO WRIT PETITION No.11538 of 2009 18th June, 2009