Smt. S. Nansita Devi v. Union of India

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE M.V. MURALIDARAN BEFORE For the Petitioner For the Respondents :: :: Mr. M. Devananda, Advocate Mr. Kh. Samarjit, DSGI. Date of Hearing and reserving Judgment & Order ::

05.07.2022 Date of Judgment & Order ::

09.09.2022 JUDGMENT AND ORDER (CAV) This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking a writ of certiorarified mandamus to quash the impugned order dated 7.6.2022 and the subsequent orders dated 27.6.2022 and 28.6.2022 and to direct the respondents to allow the retention of the petitioner in the GC Imphal for one year as per the Guideline (I)(A)(c)&(B) of the Guidelines for SANTOS vide signal dated

31.3.2022.

2. Heard Mr. M. Devananda, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Kh. Samarjit, the learned DSGI for the respondents. WP(C) No. 476 of 2022 P a g e | 3

3. Assailing the impugned orders, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is serving in GC, Imphal as Deputy Commandant and on 21.3.2022, she submitted an application to the third respondent requesting for retention in the GC for one year,inter alia, stating that she become due for Summer Chain Transfer 2022 and her son aged 4 years is suffering from delayed speech and is undergoing treatment at JNIMS Hospital, Porompat and that her husband though posted at 69 BnMantripukhri is being attached with Ops Branch, Directorate of CRPF, New Delhi and no one to look after and take care of her son.

4. The learned counsel would submit that the requisition of the petitioner was forwarded to the DIG (Adm), M&N Sector and the DIG (Adm) returned the application of the petitioner with a direction to re-submit the same during Sainik Sammelan for her transfer to any Manipur based Units. On 30.3.2022, the petitioner submitted another representation to the third respondent requesting for retention in the GC Imphal on medical grounds and the DIG (Adm) forwarded the said representation to the Special DG, NEZ, Gauhati with recommendation that the petitioner’s case is genuine.

5. The learned counsel further submitted that on

4.5.2022, the Digcent (Pers) issued signal stating that the request of the petitioner may be sent through SANTOS in SCT-2022 and WP(C) No. 476 of 2022 P a g e | 4 that no action on the application will be taken. Subsequently, another signal dated 19.5.2022 was communicated stating that the petitioner has been shown in the transfer list of Pers (Dte) signal and to sent request for retention through the SANTOS portal.

6. The learned counsel next submitted that the petitioner had almost completed the normal tenure of 3 years in the GC, but due to illness of her son aged 4 years as Autism and delayed speech and the continuing treatment, she approached respondents seeking for retention. He further submit that choice of postings as per SANTOS Guideline and request for retention was again made through SANTOS and the case of the petitioner for retention was forwarded to the Sector HQR on 20.5.2022 through SANTOS portal.

7. According to the learned counsel, as per the Guideline No.(I) (A) & B, the petitioner has become eligible for retention of one year in the GC Imphal even though normal tenure of 3 years in the GC Imphal has completed. While so, on 7.6.2022, the petitioner was transferred to 238 Bn and aggrieved by the same, the petitioner submitted an application on 8.6.2022 to the IGP (Pers) seeking for personal interview and the same was forwarded vide signal dated

10.6.2022, however, failed to consider the request of the petitioner for personal interview. By the order dated 27.6.2022, the WP(C) No. 476 of 2022 P a g e | 5 application dated 8.6.2022 was disposed of and by the order dated

28.6.2022, the petitioner was struck off from the strength of GC. Challenging all three orders, the learned counsel for the petitioner prayed for setting aside of the same and to direct the respondents to allow the retention of the petitioner in GC Imphal for one year.

8. On the other hand, the learned Central Government Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents submitted that the reason for retention sought by the petitioner is not a genuine ground and the petitioner is serving in the present place of posting for more than three years. He would submit that the case of the petitioner has been personally heard by the competent authority and only after hearing the grievance, her application seeking retention dated

8.6.2022 was disposed of. Accordingly, by the order dated

28.6.2022 her name was struck off from the strength of GC with effect from 28.6.2022 AN. Therefore, there is no infirmities in the impugned orders. Thus, prayed for dismissal of the writ petition.

9. This Court considered the rival submissions and also perused the materials available on record.

10. There is no dispute that the petitioner had completed the normal tenure of 3 years in the GC, however, due to illness of her son aged 4 years as Autism and delayed speech and also WP(C) No. 476 of 2022 P a g e | 6 continuing treatment, she seeks retention of one year in the GC, Imphal. According to the petitioner, no one is available to take care of her son and her husband is also serving in CRPF. Though her husband was posted at 69 Bn. Mantripukhri, he is presently attached with Ops Branch, Directorate, CRPF, New Delhi.

11. The petitioner sought retention on the ground that as per Guideline No.(I)(A)(c) & B, she is eligible for retention of one year in GC Imphal even though the normal tenure of 3 years in GC Imphal has completed. On a perusal of the record, this Court finds that since the case of the petitioner being genuine, her case was also recommended by the DIG (Adm) M&N for retention. On a further perusal of records, it reveal that respondent authorities issued transfer order dated 7.6.2022 thereby transferring her to 238 Bn.

12. Aggrieved by the aforesaid transfer, the petitioner submitted an application on 8.6.2022 to the IGP (Pers) seeking personal interview and since the same was not considered, she filed WP (C) No.447 of 2022 before this Court. By the order dated

17.6.2022, this Court, disposed of the said writ petition with liberty. Thereafter, the impugned order dated 27.6.2022 came to be passed rejecting the request of the petitioner for retention in GC Imphal and consequently, relieved her from GC with effect from 28.6.2022 with WP(C) No. 476 of 2022 P a g e | 7 a direction to report to 238 Bn after availing admissible joining time and 60 days earned leave enroute.

13. The materials produced by both sides would show that the rejection of the request of the petitioner for retention of one year in GC, Imphal on medical grounds of her son is in violation of Guideline No.(I)(A)(c) & B of the SANTOS Guidelines. As could be seen from the medical records and it is indisputable that the petitioner’s son, who is aged 4 years, is suffering from Autism and is undergoing treatment for delayed speech, which is an undeniable symptom of Autism at JNIMS, Imphal. That apart, her grievance that no one is available to take care of her son cannot be brushed aside, as her husband who is also serving in CRPF now presently attached with Ops Branch, Directorate, CRPF, New Delhi. Further, it is the case of the petitioner that there were two sudden death in her family. If the treatment which is being undergoing by the son of the petitioner at Imphal is stopped abruptly and started afresh in another language, it will cause irreparable harm to the child’s progress.

14. Considering the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the view that this is a fit case to consider for retention of the petitioner for a period of one year in GC, Imphal. If the grievance of the petitioner is not considered sympathetically, WP(C) No. 476 of 2022 P a g e | 8 it will definitely affect the treatment of the petitioner’s son. Further, the request for retention made by the petitioner is as per Guideline No.(I)(A)(c) & B of the SANTOS Guidelines.

15. In the result, a) the writ petition is allowed. b) the impugned transfer order dated 7.6.2022 and the consequential orders dated 27.6.2022 and

28.6.2022 are set aside. c) the respondent authorities are directed to allow retention of the petitioner in the GC, Imphal for one year as per Guideline No.(I)(A)(c) & B of the SANTOS Guidelines. d) No costs.

16. It is made clear that this taking note of the pathetic situation faced by the petitioner, the above order is passed and the same cannot be cited as a precedent. JUDGE FR/NFR Sushil WP(C) No. 476 of 2022