IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN TUESDAY, THE 8TH NOVEMBER 2011 / 17TH KARTHIKA 1933 WP(C).No. 29654 of 2011(F) -------------------------- PETITIONER:- ------------------ AJITH KUMAR, AGED 43 YEARS, S/O.M.ANIRUDHAN, CONSTABLE NO.894525878, C COY, CENTRAL INDUSTRIAL SECUTIRY FORCE UNIT, COCHIN PORT TRUST, COCHIN REISIDNG AT C2-361, CISF COMPLEX, WELLINGTON ISLAND,COCHIN. BY ADV. SRI.JOHNSON GOMEZ SRI.S.BIJU (KIZHAKKANELA) RESPONDENTS:- --------------------- 1. THE DIRECTOR GENERAL, CENTRAL INDUSTRIAL SECUTIRY FORCE, OFFICE OF THE DIRECTOR GENERAL,CENTRAL INDUSTRIAL SECUTIRY FORCE UNIT, NEW DELHI-110 001. 2. THE INSPECTOR GENERAL, CENTRAL INDUSTRIAL SECUTIRY FORCE, SOUTH ZONE HEAD QUARTERS, CHENNAI, TAMIL NADU-600 001. 3. THE COMMANDANT, CENTRAL INDUSTRIAL SECUTIRY FORCE UNIT, COCHIN PORT TRUST, COCHIN-682 003. BY ASSISTANT SOLICITOR GENERAL SRI.P.PARAMESWARAN NAIR. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 08/11/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No. 29654 of 2011(F) APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:- EXHIBIT P1. TRUE COPY OF THE REFERENCE LETER NO.D5-MED.EXAM/52/2009-H DATED 24/2/2009. EXHIBIT P2. TRUE COPY OF THE MEDICAL CERTIFICATE DATED 10/3/2009 ISSUED BY THE LISIE HOSPITAL, ERNAKULAM. EXHIBIT P3. TRUE COPY OF THE MEDICAL CERTIFICATE DATED 20/1/2010 ISSUED BY THE COCHIN PORT TRUST HOSPITAL, MEDICAL DEPARTMENT, COCHIN. EXHIBIT P4. TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED NIL SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P5. TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 24/4/2010 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P6. TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 2NMD JUNE 2010 IN WPC 17035/2010 PASSED BY THIS HONOURABLE COURT. EXHIBIT P7. TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT OF THE ASSISTANT MEDICAL OFFICER, COCHIN PORT TRUST, DATED 17/2/2011. EXHIBIT P8. TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 2/5/2011 SUBMITTED BY THE PETIIONER BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P9. TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 31/5/2011 IN WPC NO.13113/2011 PASSED BY THIS HONOURABLE COURT. EXHIBIT P10. TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.E-38018/22(CC)/2011 ESTT.II/1705 DATED 5/7/2011 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P11. TRUE COPY OF THE DISCHARGE SUMMARY ISSUED BY THE SREE UTHRADOM THIRUVNAL HOSPITAL, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DATED 10/7/2011. EXHIBIT P12A.TRUE COPY OF THE MEDICAL CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE SENIOR CONSULTANT ORTHOPEDIC SURGEN, SUT HOISPITAL, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DATED 27/6/2011. EXHIBIT P12B.TRUE COPY OF THE MEDICAL CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE SENIOR CONSULTANT ORTHOPEDIC SURGEN, SUT HOISPITAL, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DATED 31/7/2011. EXHIBIT P12C.TRUE COPY OF THE MEDICAL CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE SENIOR CONSULTANT ORTHOPEDIC SURGEN, SUT HOISPITAL, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DATED 13/9/2011. EXHIBIT P12D.TRUE COPY OF THE MEDICAL CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE SENIOR CONSULTANT ORTHOPEDIC SURGEN, SUT HOISPITAL, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DATED 12/10/2011. WP(C).No. 29654 of 2011(F) -: 2 :- EXHIBIT P13A.TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 19/8/2011 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P14A.TRUE COPY OF THE FITNESS CERTIFICATE DATED 1/11/2011 ISSUED BY THE SENIOR CONSULTANT ORTHOPEDIC SURGEON. EXHIBIT P15A.TRUE COPY OF THE MOVEMENT ORDER NO.E-38014/CISF/CPT/MO/ ADMN.1/2011/3402 DATED 1/11/2011. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS:- NIL. ( TRUE COPY ) PA TO JUDGE. Kvs/- K.SURENDRA MOHAN, J = = = = = = = = = = = = = WP(C).No.29654 of 2011-F. = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 8th November, 2011. J U D G M E N T The petitioner has filed this writ petition challenging Ext.P10 order issued by the first respondent. The petitioner while working as Constable in the Central Industrial Security Force Unit ('CISF' in short), Cochin Port Trust under the second respondent was transferred to the CISF Unit, Durgapur Steel Plant, West Bengal. Being aggrieved by his transfer and posting, the petitioner submitted Ext.P8 representation highlighting his grievances and requesting for cancellation of his transfer. He had also moved this Court by filing WP(C).No.13113/2011. The said writ petition was disposed of by Ext.P9 judgment directing the first respondent to consider the grievances of the petitioner. Pending consideration of the said representation, the petitioner was allowed to continue in the present station. WP(C).No.29654/2011-F. 2 Accordingly, the matter was considered and Ext.P10 order has been passed. 2. As per Ext.P10 order, it has been found that the petitioner is a person who has put in 13 years and 11 months in his Home Zone. Therefore, he is a person who is due for transfer to some place outside his Home Zone. Though the petitioner was transferred to Durgapur Steel Plant, he objected to the said transfer on the ground that his parents are suffering various diseases due to their old age. It is also his contention that he had suffered serious injuries in a motor accident necessitating medical treatment for a prolonged period of time. On a consideration of the contentions put forward by the petitioner, the first respondent came to the conclusion that there were no grounds to interfere with the transfer of the petitioner. In fact, it has been observed in Ext.P10 that Durgapur has adequate medical facilities to cater to the needs of both the petitioner and his parents. Pursuant to Ext.P10, Ext.P15 WP(C).No.29654/2011-F. 3 movement order has also been issued. 3. According to the counsel for the petitioner, the transfer of the petitioner in the middle of the academic year causes a lot of inconvenience and loss to the petitioner and his family. His only child is studying in the school here. Therefore, his family would find it difficult to accompany him to the place of his posting. His medical condition also necessitates his retention at Cochin for some more time. Therefore it is contended that he may be at least permitted to continue in Cochin till the end of this academic year. 4. The Assistant Solicitor General who appears for the respondents opposes the plea of the petitioner. It is pointed out that though the petitioner was transferred, he has managed to continue at Cochin for the past more than two years on various excuses. He has also filed writ petitions at different points of time, with the object of some how continuing at his present posting place. The counsel disputes the contention of the petitioner that he has WP(C).No.29654/2011-F. 4 suffered another accident on 18.5.2011. It is also pointed out that Ext.P15 was served on the petitioner after he had joined duty on the strength of a fitness certificate, which is the evidence of his fitness. Since all the aspects have been considered in Ext.P10, it is pointed out that there are no grounds to interfere with either Ext.P10 or Ext.P15. 5. I have considered the rival contentions anxiously. It is no doubt and true that the petitioner has been transferred a far off place. However, the petitioner is part of a uniformed Force, the CISF, which is having operations all over the country. Transfer is a necessary incident of service and the petitioner cannot be heard to complain about the same. The limited indulgence that is possible is only to make minor adjustments so as to grant the employee a suitable posting in order to mitigate the inconvenience that is caused by the transfer. Though the petitioner submits that he had met with another accident on 18.5.2011, the seriousness of the injury suffered by him is disputed by the WP(C).No.29654/2011-F. 5 counsel for the respondents. The counsel lays stress on the fact that the petitioner has joined duty by producing fitness certificate which shows that the petitioner is fully fit to discharge his duties. Therefore, he points out that there are no grounds to interfere with Ext.P10. 6. Since Ext.P10 has considered the grievances of the petitioner properly, I do not find any grounds to interfere with the said proceedings. Ext.P15 has been issued pursuant to Ext.P10. The Assistant Solicitor General submits that pursuant to Ext.P15, the petitioner has also been relieved from his present posting on 1.11.2011. In the above circumstances, the petitioner is not entitled to any of the reliefs claimed in this writ petition. 7. The counsel for the petitioner submits that considering the peculiar plight of the petitioner he may be permitted to continue in Cochin at least till the end of this academic year. The above is an aspect that would have to be left for the consideration of the first respondent, if the WP(C).No.29654/2011-F. 6 petitioner makes a proper request for such consideration. According to the petitioner, he has already submitted Ext.P13. 8. In the above circumstances, I direct the first respondent to consider Ext.P13 in accordance with law and to pass appropriate orders thereon, as expeditiously as possible and at any rate within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. K.SURENDRA MOHAN, (Judge) Kvs/-