IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.GIRI TUESDAY, THE 1ST JULY 2008 / 10TH ASHADHA 1930 WP(C).No. 19649 of 2008(L) -------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ JULIUS PASCHAL, NO. 914521239 CONSTABLE, CISF UNIT, COCHIN SHIP YARD, COCHIN. BY ADV. SRI.G.SASIDHARAN CHEMPAZHANTHIYIL SRI.S.VISHNU RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. THE DEPUTY COMMANDANT, CISF UNIT, COCHIN SHIP YARD, COCHIN. 2. THE INSPECTOR GENERAL, CISF, SOUTHERN SECTOR, RAJAJI BHAVAN, BASANT NAGAR, CHENNAI. 3. THE DIRECTOR GENERAL, CISF, HEADQUARTERS, CGO COMPLEX, LODHI ROAD, NEW DELHI. BY ASG SRI.P.PARAMESWARAN NAIR THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 01/07/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: V.GIRI, J ------------------- W.P.(C).19649/2008 -------------------- Dated this the 1st day of July, 2008 JUDGMENT Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel appearing for the respondents. 2. Petitioner is a Constable currently working in the CISF Unit in Cochin Shipyard. His wife is a member of the Force under the CISF. Earlier when the petitioner was working in CISF Unit in Cochin Shipyard, his wife was working in CISF Unit, Cochin Port Trust. This convenience was afforded to CISF personnel to enable the spouses, to work, as far as possible, in the same station. While so, petitioner’s wife was transferred to Neyveli and it seems that the petitioner was also transferred to Neyveli without any request made for the same. Due to personal reasons, petitioner sought for a deferment of the transfer. That was ultimately accepted by the respondents. Petitioner was permitted to be retained at Cochin till 30.6.2008. In the meanwhile, petitioner’s wife had been W.P.(C).19649/2008 2 transferred to Hyderabad where she is currently stationed. In the circumstances, petitioner has sought for a posting in Hyderabad. His children are currently studying at Hyderabad. Request made by the petitioner in this regard, Ext.P2, is addressed to the Director General, CISF Head quarters, New Delhi, the third respondent. Petitioner’s grievance is that his request is not forwarded so far to the third respondent. He refers to Ext.P3 wherein the application addressed to the DG, CISF for a posting at Hyderabad, is returned with the direction to re-submit the same after reporting at the new place of posting. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that nevertheless Ext.P2 has been forwarded to the third respondent. Submission is recorded. At any rate, request pending in Ext.P2 and now reiterated under Ext.P5 will have to be considered by the third respondent. 3. In the result, writ petition is disposed of directing the third respondent to consider the petitioner’s request, W.P.(C).19649/2008 3 Ext.P2, for a posting in Hyderabad, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. V.GIRI, Judge mrcs