WP(C) 4719/2008 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE IA ANSARI Heard Mr. SS Dey, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Mr. N Barua, l earned Assistant Solicitor General, for the respondents. The petitioner, who hails from the district of Sonitpur, Assam, was recr uited as a constable in the Central Reserve Police Force and served, w.e.f. 31-0 3-1990 to 18-07-1991, at Group Centre, Guwahati, and, thereafter, upon having se rved at different places in various States, such as, Jammu & Kashmir, Rajasthan, Tripura and at Silchar, in the State of Assam, he came to be posted, as a const able, at Group Centre, Guwahati, on 10-03-2003 and since then, he has continued to remain, at Guwahati, even after his promotion, on 01-04-2006, to the rank of Head Constable. By order, dated 03-11-2008, issued by the respondent No. 3, namely, Depu ty Inspector General of Police, Group Centre, CRPF, Guwahati, which stands impug ned in this writ petition, the petitioner has been posted out to Group Centre, C RPF, Teliamura, which falls in the State of Tripura. The petitioner claims that he has three minor children, who suffer from multiple disabilities and are affected Cerebral Palsy, Mental Retardation and Sp eech Impairment. Referring to the office memorandum, dated 15-02-1991 (Annexure- 3 to the writ petition), issued by the Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances & Pensions (Department of Personal & Training), Government of India, the petitio ner contends that considering the medical incapacity with which his children suf fer from, he needs to be kept retained at Guwahati. The said office memorandum r eads as under: Subject : Posting of Government employees who have mentally retired children. The undersigned is directed to say that there has been a demand that an employed parent of a mentally retarded child should be given posting at a place of his/her choice. This demand has been made on the plea that facilities of medi cal aid and education of such children are not available everywhere. Also lookin g after such children does require special care and patience and is expensive. H ence some concessions from the Government at least in matters of posting at a pl ace of choice is called for. 2. The matter has been examined. Considering that the facilities for medica l help and education of mentally retarded children may not be available at all s tations, a choice in the place of posting is likely to be of some help to the pa rent in taking care of such a child. While administratively it may not be possib le in all cases to ensure posting of such an employee at a place of his/her choi ce, Ministries/Departments are requested to take a sympathetic view on the merit s of each case accommodate such requests for posting to the extent possible. Mr. Dey, learned counsel for the petitioner, places on record certain do cuments in support of the petitioner’s case as regards the fact that his three c hildren suffer from multiple disabilities. Mr. Barua, learned Assistant Solicito r Genearl, has also produced a copy of the instructions, received by him from th e respondents. Upon careful perusal of the Office Memorandum, dated 15-02-1991, aforeme ntioned, what transpires is that the office memorandum relates to transfer of th ose employees, whose children are mentally retarded and may not receive medical help at all places, where the employees may be posted. This Memorandum aims at p osting, to the extent possible, such an employee, as aforesaid, to a place, wher e necessary medical facilities are available. This Memorandum does not, however, guarantee retention of any such employee as aforesaid at any given station. Suc h being the case, the petitioner may not be necessarily retained, at Guwahati, b y the respondents, though, in the context of the peculiarity of the facts and at tending circumstances of the present case, the respondents/authorities concerned need to be consider the petitioner’s case as a special case. The respondents/au thorities concerned are, therefore, required to strike a balance between the exi gencies of service, on the one hand, and the petitioner’s plight, on the other. The respondents, as a model employer, have to take a decision, in the matter, by applying their mind to all such factors, which may be relevant for the purpose of reaching a correct decision, for, it is, contended, on behalf of the petition er, that the Group Centre, Teliamura, Tripura, does not have any such medical fa cilities, which the petitioner’s children need. Considering, therefore, the matter in its entirety and in the interest o f justice, it is hereby directed that the petitioner shall, within a week from t oday, submit, in writing, to the respondent No. 3, namely, Deputy Inspector Gene ral of Police, Group Centre, CRPF, Guwahati, a representation stating the ground s for seeking modification of the impugned transfer order. The respondents, part icularly, the respondent No. 3, namely, Deputy Inspector General of Police, Grou p Centre, CRPF, Guwahati, shall consider the petitioner’s case, in the light of the guidelines provided by the office memorandum, dated 15-02-1991, the attendin g circumstances of the case and the exigencies of service and, then, pass such o rder(s) as may be permissible in law. Until the time the decision, as directed h ereinbefore, is taken by the respondents/authorities concerned, the impugned tra nsfer order, dated 03-11-2008, shall remain suspended. With the above observations and directions, this writ petition shall sta nd disposed of. No order as to costs. Furnish a copy of this order to the Assistant Solicitor General.