Karnataka High Court
Putta Srinivasa Rao vs The Union Of India on 31 January, 2017
Author: Ashok B.Hinchigeri
Bench: Ashok B. Hinchigeri
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 31ST DAY OF JANUARY 2017
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK B. HINCHIGERI
WRIT PETITION No.34976 OF 2016(S-RES)
BETWEEN :
Putta Srinivasa Rao,
Aged about 42 years,
Son of Late P.Adivaiah,
Working as Head Constable,
Regiment No.94009987,
Resident of Govada Village,
Chinna Kotha Palli Post,
Prakasam District,
Andhra Pradesh Pin - 523 260.
Presently posted at
Ftr.Head quarter,
Border Security Force,
STC,Yelahanka,
Bengaluru - 560 063. ... Petitioner
(By Sri Ambaji Rao Najre, Advocate)
AND:
1. The Union of India,
Ministry of Home Affairs,
North Block, Central
Secretariat, New Delhi
- 110 001, by its Secretary.
2. Directorate General,
Border Security Force,
Personal Directorate-Staff Section
2
Block No.4, C.G.O. Complex,
Lodhi Road,
New Delhi - 110 003.
3. The Inspector General
FTR HQ (Spl OPS) BSF
Yelahanka, Bengaluru - 560 053. ...Respondents
(By Sri B.S.Pramod, CGC for R1 to R3)
This writ petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the
Constitution of India praying to quash the transfer order issued
by R3 dated 02.05.2016 in reference at Annexure-B and
movement order dated 14.06.2016 in reference at Annexure-E,
etc.
This writ petition, coming on for orders, this day, the Court
made the following:
ORDER
The petitioner who is working as a Head Constable in Border Security Force ('B.S.F.' for short) has called into question the movement order, dated 14.06.2016 (Annexure-E) transferring him from Bengaluru to Odisha.
2. Sri Ambaji Rao Najre, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner's mother is bedridden. She has undergone multiple surgeries. As per the doctor's assessment, she is on her last legs. He submits that if he is permitted to be in Bengaluru till April 2017, he would comply with the transfer order by going to Odisha. Without prejudice to this submission, 3 the learned counsel states, on instructions, that the petitioner proposes to take voluntary retirement.
3. The learned counsel for the respondent Sri B.S.Pramod submits that though the impugned transfer order is passed in June 2016, the petitioner has not complied with the same. He submits, on instructions, that if the petitioner reports himself to the transferred place in Odisha, his request for voluntary retirement would be considered within five days. He also submits that the petitioner has not filed any application for taking the voluntary retirement in the prescribed form.
4. The submissions of the leaned counsel have received my thoughtful consideration. It is trite that transfer is an incidence of service and no employee has any vested right to demand that he be retained in a particular place. Depending upon the exigencies of administration, the employer will take a decision in the matter of transferring his employees.
5. It is also to be noted that the petitioner is in the services of a defence organization, namely, B.S.F. Discipline requires that he should have complied with the transfer order, 4 more so in the absence of granting any stay in these proceedings.
6. No violation of any rule is pointed out. Only on the ground of hardship this Court's interference in transfer matters is not warranted. If the petitioner has any grievance, he has to ventilate the same by making appropriate representation to the competent authority.
7. If, as and when the petitioner makes the application in the prescribed form for taking voluntary retirement, the same shall be considered by the respondents in accordance with law and as expeditiously as possible.
8. This petition is accordingly disposed of. No order as to costs.
Sd/-
JUDGE Cm/-