IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU WRIT PETITION NO : 23031 of 2008 Between: K. Masana, S/o. K. Sayanna, CISF No. 751320084, CISF Unit, BDL., Bhanur, Medak District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Assistant Inspector General (SS), Central Industrial Security Force, South Zone, Head Quarters, Besant Road, Chennai. 2 The Deputy Inspector General, Central Industrial Security Force, South Zone, Head Quarters, Besant Road, Chennai. 3 The Deputy Commandant, Central Industrial Security Force, BDL., Bhanur, Medak District. .....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 issue Writ, Order or direction, more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the proceedings of the 1st respondent in proceeding No. E31014/57(PCP)/Estt/2008, dt. 24-9-2008 in so far as transferring the petitioner from BDL Bhanur to Chennai Port Trust as illegal, arbitrary and unjust and consequently direct the respondents to continue the petitioner at BDL., Bhanur. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.B.SHIVA KUMAR Counsel for the Respondents: MR.A.RAJASHEKAR REDDY (ASST SOLICITOR GEN) The Court made the following : THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. RAMULU W.P. No. 23031 of 2008 O R D E R: Heard both sides. This writ petition is ﬁled seeking a Mandamus declaring the proceedings of the 1st respondent bearing No.E31014/57(PCP)/Estt/2008 dated 24.9.2008 in transferring the petitioner from BDL Bhanur to Chennai Port Trust, as illegal and arbitrary. According to the petitioner, he has got hardly 3½ years of service for retirement; though he is promoted and transferred to Chennai Port Trust, he is entitled to be accommodated in a place nearer to his Home District or Neighbouring District as per the transfer policy i.e. Circular No.1 of 2008 dated 28.1.2008. Clause 11 of the said Circular reads as under: “As far as possible no CISF personnel will be posted to a unit in their Home District and neighbouring Home District. However the personnel who are on the verge of retirement within 03 years may be posted to a unit in their District/neighbouring district as far as possible within the ambit of administrative convenience so that he as far as possible a full two years term. All concerned will therefore, maintain details of home district of each personnel in their posting profile”. The grievance of the petitioner is that earlier when he was transferred in the month of June, 2008 to Chennai Port Trust, he ﬁled W.P. No. 12454 of 2008 before this Court and the same was allowed quashing the said transfer order and giving liberty to the Department to post him to the Home District and he was retained at BDL Bhanur. Keeping this in mind, the respondents again transferred the petitioner on promotion to Chennai Port Trust; this action on the part of the respondents is illegal and arbitrary. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents strenuously contended that ﬁling of earlier writ petition is nothing to do with the transfer. The present transfer, strictly speaking, is not a transfer on any other ground but it is a transfer on promotion of the individual, therefore, the said order of transfer cannot be interfered with by this court. It is further contended that Clause 11 of the Circular No.1 of 2008 has no application to the case of the petitioner, since this is not a transfer but it is promotion and posting. I have given my earnest consideration to the respective submissions made by the learned counsel on either side and perused the impugned order and other material made available on record. At the outset, it is noticed that when the petitioner was transferred in the month of June, 2008 from BDL Bhanur to Chennai Port Trust, this Court quashed the said transfer order, leaving liberty to the respondents to accommodate the petitioner in the Home District and, in fact, the petitioner was retained at BDL Bhanur. However, within three months, when his promotion was considered, he was again posted to Chennai Port Trust. This appears to be contrary to Clause 11 of the transfer policy, as noticed above. Apart from that, the petitioner asserted, there are more than 10 vacancies available in the cadre of ASI i.e. the promotional cadre of the petitioner, at BDL Bhanur itself. Therefore, it would be desirable, when the petitioner is at the verge of retirement and hardly having 3½ years to go, to be accommodated at a nearby place. Under those circumstances, the respondents are directed to reconsider the case of the petitioner for accommodating him at BDL Bhanur or in an around Hyderabad City, instead of transferring him at the verge of retirement to a far-oﬀ place and pass appropriate orders within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Till such time, the impugned order shall not be given effect to. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of. No order as to costs. C.V. RAMULU, J. Date: 21-10-2008. MVB.