Brief Facts of the Case
The Petitioner, aged 58 years, had filed a Writ Petition under the Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India praying to quash the movement order dated 8.02.2021. As per the order, the Petitioner had been directed to move from Coorg to Odisha, a few years before his retirement. The Petitioner had joined BSF as a constable in 1984 and was currently holding an Inspector position. In his 36 years of service, he had been transferred to various parts of the country.
Submissions by the Petitioner
The Petitioner had submitted that he was supposed to retire in April 2020. However, the age of retirement of all personnel was increased from 57 to 60 years. Therefore, the Petitioner’s time of retirement was changed to April 2023. At the time of Appeal, the petitioner was serving in Bangalore. Later, a movement order was passed directing the Petitioner to report to Odisha. The Learned counsel had submitted that the Petitioner was 58 years old and was currently in the fag end of his career. It was contended that the Petitioner was entitled to protection under the Rule which prohibits terminal transfers.
Grounds of Challenge
The submission was challenged by the learned counsel of the respondent because the order was a Movement order and not a Transfer order per se. It was argued that the Petitioner was an officer of a disciplined force, therefore, the petitioner could not ask to be transferred to a specific state.
The Karnataka High Court had noted that the transfer of BSF personnel was regulated by the Border Security Force Rules, 2000. Further, it was pointed out by the court that there was a rule regarding the members who have good service records would be given posting near their hometown two years before their retirement. Additionally, it was highlighted by the court by referring to the case of Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan V Samodar Prasad (2004) 12 SC 299 that the judicial interference in an incidence of service could only be on certain grounds and the given situation falls under the said grounds.
The Karnataka High Court allowed the Writ Petition by stating that Considering movement order was not a transfer order was “at best figment of imagination”. Therefore, the movement order was quashed by the court, and the Petitioner was then entitled to all consequential benefits.
Libertatem.in is now on Telegram. Follow us for regular legal updates and judgment from courts. Follow us on Google News, Instagram, LinkedIn, Facebook & Twitter. You can subscribe to our Weekly Email Updates. You can also contribute stories like this and help us spread awareness for a better society. Submit Your Post Now.