IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.GIRI MONDAY, THE 22ND OCTOBER 2007 / 30TH ASWINA 1929 WP(C).No. 27955 of 2007(C) PETITIONER: JOHN WICKLIF.V, NO.901407045, CISF UNIT, VSSC, THUMBA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN-695022. BY ADV. SRI.G.SASIDHARAN CHEMPAZHANTHIYIL SRI.S.VISHNU RESPONDENTS: 1. DIRECTOR GENERAL, CISF HEAD QUARTERS, BLOCK NO.13, CGO COMPLEX, LODHI ROAD, NEW DELHI-3. 2. INSPECTOR GENERAL, SOUTH ZONE, CISF SOUTH SECTOR HQR, CGO COMPLEX, CHENNAI. 3. COMMANDANT, CISF UNIT, VSSC, THUMBA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.P.PARAMESWARAN NAIR, ASST.SOLICITOR THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 22/10/2007, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: V.GIRI, J. ------------------------- W.P.(C).No.27955 of 2007 C ------------------------- Dated this the 22nd day of October, 2007. JUDGMENT This petition was filed essentially challenging the transfer of the petitioner from Pallippuram to SCCL, Singarani in A.P. According to the petitioner, he had been treated for pulmonary problems and therefore, it would aggravate his ailment if he is posted at Singarani. The petitioner had moved for variation of the transfer order. 2. During the pendency of the writ petition, his claim has been considered by the 2nd respondent in Annexure R1(a) order passed on 5.10.2007. The petitioner’s transfer to Singarani has been cancelled. Now the petitioner stands transferred to Vishakhapatanam Steel plant. In Annexure R1(a) produced along with the counter W.P.(C).No.27955 of 2007 :: 2 :: affidavit, it is stated that, as per the service conditions, the petitioner, who is a member of the Armed Force of the Union of India, is liable to be transferred anywhere in India. Though his request for cancellation of his posting for a period of one year was rejected, nevertheless on humanitarian grounds, his posting to the CISF Unit at Singarani was cancelled and he is posted at CISF Vishakhapatanam, where family accommodation and good medical facilities are available, according to the respondents. In circumstances where the petitioner's submission for variation of posting has been considered, at least in part, I do not find any reason to interfere any further in this writ petition. The 2nd respondent has considered and accepted the petitioner’s request, at least in W.P.(C).No.27955 of 2007 :: 3 :: part. Recording the fact that the petitioner has been transferred as per Ext.R1(a) to Vishakhapatanam, the writ petition is disposed of. Sd/- (V.GIRI) JUDGE sk/ //true copy// P.S. To Judge