IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Special Appeal No. 84 of 2010 Mohan Singh Bisht S/o Late Shri P.S. Bisht, Assistant Field Officer (medics), Sector head Quarterr, S.S.B. Ganiadeoli Ranikhet, District-Almora. ………. Appellant. Versus 1. Union of India through its Secretary Minister of Home Affairs, New Delhi 2. The Director General, S.S.B. Force Head Quarter, R.K. Puram, New Delhi. 3. The Inspector General, S.S.B. Ftr. Hqrs. Lucknow, U.P. 4. Dy. Inspector General SHQ, S.S.B. Ranikhet, District-Almora. ………… Respondents JUDGMENT Coram: Hon’ble J.S. Khehar, Chief Justice Hon’ble Sudhanshu Dhulia, Judge Present: Mr. Mangal Singh Chauhan, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. Vikas Pande, Advocate for the respondents. Date of Decision: 03.06.2010 J.S. KHEHAR, C.J. (Oral) The appellant was transferred by the respondent from Ranikhet in the State of Uttarakhand to Ghittorni in the State of Delhi. Dissatisfied with the aforesaid order, the appellant approached this Court by filing Writ Petition (S/S) No. 335 of 2010. A learned Single Judge of this Court, vide an order dated 13.05.2010, dismissed the aforesaid writ petition. Through the instant Special Appeal, besides assailing the impugned order of transfer dated 19.04.2010, the appellant has also impugned the order dated 13.05.2010, whereby Writ Petition (S/S) No. 335 of 2010 was dismissed. 2. During the course of hearing, it is the vehement contention of the learned counsel for the appellant, that as per the transfer policy guidelines issued by the respondents, normal tenure at a station is of a period of five years. Additionally, the police guidelines mandate that an employee should not ordinarily be transferred within two years of the date of his retirement from service. 3. The instant contention was also advanced on behalf of the appellant before the learned Single Judge. For the same reasons, as were indicated by the learned Single Judge in his order dated 13.05.2010, we are of the view that transfer policies issued by the Government or organizations, which are instrumentalities of the State in terms of Article 12 of the Constitution of India are merely directory, and as such, have no binding force. Additionally, in the absence of allegations of mala fides or extraneous consideration coupled with the violation of the policy guidelines, it is inappropriate to interfere in an order of transfer. Suffice it to state, that the learned counsel for the appellant, during the course of hearing of the instant case, did not raise any such allegations against any of the respondents. 4. In view of the above, we are satisfied that there is no infirmity in the order dated 13.05.2010, vide which Writ Petition (S/S) No. 335 of 2010 was dismissed by this Court. 5. Despite our aforesaid conclusion, we are of the view that ends of justice would be met in this case, if the respondents are directed to re-consider the compassionate plea raised by the appellant in his representation dated 28.04.2010, wherein the appellant had asserted that one of his children was handicap and was receiving education in Ranikhet, as also, the fact that his wife is suffering from certain medical disabilities. We accordingly hereby direct the competent authority to take a decision on the representation of the appellant dated 28.04.2010. The instant direction issued by us should not be taken as an expression of an opinion, one way or the other, at the hands of this Court. 6. The instant appeal disposed of accordingly. (Sudhanshu Dhulia, J.) (J.S. Khehar, C.J.) 03.06.2010 P. Singh