# Santosh Kumar Pal v. Union of India & Ors

- **Citation:** (2025) 5 ILRA 495
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2025-05-20
- **Case number:** Writ A No. 6705 of 2025
- **Bench:** Ajit Kumar
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/santosh-kumar-pal-v-union-of-india-ors-53393
- **Pages:** 6

## Headnote

Disorder - Non-speaking order - Legality.
Petitioner, a CRPF Constable, challenged
modified transfer order despite being under
treatment for seizure disorder at Prayagraj.
Retention
Policy
(DG
CRPF
Circular
27.09.2022, Clause 7) allows exceptions on
genuine medical grounds. Authorities, while
altering
station
from
Manipur
to
Visakhapatnam, failed to consider medical
documents or reasons, passing a nonspeaking order. Court held that transfer
being an incidence of service is ordinarily
within
employer's domain,
yet
once a
retention policy exists, authorities are bound
to apply their mind to medical claims under
it. Diseases mentioned in the policy are
illustrative,
not
exhaustive.
"Seizure
disorder" is at par or more severe than listed
ailments. Non-application of mind vitiates
transfer order. Matter remitted to authority
to reconsider petitioner's medical case;
meanwhile, impugned transfer order dated
07.05.2025 quashed.

List of Cases cited:

## Text

5 All. Santosh Kumar Pal Vs. Union of India & Ors.
495
of Apex Court giving in para-13 of
the aforesaid judgment would be applicable
whereby the general principles in respect of
law of deputation has been defined. Hence,
the present petitioners cannot get any
benefit from the judgment of Ashok Kumar
Ratilal Patel (supra) in the present case.

28.
Hence,
to
sum
up,
the
deputationists have got no indefeasible
right to be retained in their borrowing
department and they should be repatriated
to their parent department where they have
been maintaining their lien. The deputation
appointment may not be of permanent
nature so the deputationists should either be
repatriated to their parent department as per
terms and conditions of such appointment
or in terms of the guidelines so prescribed
under the Government Order or any
circular etc. dealing such issue or even
prior to the period so prescribed in their
appointment
order
if
the
Competent
Authority of the parent department or
borrowing department is willing to do so
following the due procedure of law.

29. In the light of what have been
considered here-in-above including the
case laws, I do not find any illegality or
infirmity in the impugned order of
repatriation dated 01.07.2024 and the
relieving order dated 02.07.2024 as well as
other similar orders under challenged in the
bunch of writ petitions, so this bunch of
writ
petitions
are
dismissed
being
misconceived. The interim orders granted
in the bunch of writ petitions are hereby
vacated. The petitioners of this bunch of
writ petitions are directed to submit their
joining at their parent department pursuant
to their repatriation orders.

30. Consequently, all the writ
petitions of this bunch are dismissed.
31. No order as to cost.
----------
(2025) 5 ILRA 495
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 20.05.2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE AJIT KUMAR, J.

Writ A No. 6705 of 2025

Santosh Kumar Pal ...Petitioner
Versus
Union of India & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Malik Juned Ahmad

Counsel for the Respondents:
A.S.G.I., Saumitra Singh

Transfer - Retention Policy - Seizure
Disorder - Non-speaking order - Legality.
Petitioner, a CRPF Constable, challenged
modified transfer order despite being under
treatment for seizure disorder at Prayagraj.
Retention
Policy
(DG
CRPF
Circular
27.09.2022, Clause 7) allows exceptions on
genuine medical grounds. Authorities, while
altering
station
from
Manipur
to
Visakhapatnam, failed to consider medical
documents or reasons, passing a nonspeaking order. Court held that transfer
being an incidence of service is ordinarily
within
employer's domain,
yet
once a
retention policy exists, authorities are bound
to apply their mind to medical claims under
it. Diseases mentioned in the policy are
illustrative,
not
exhaustive.
"Seizure
disorder" is at par or more severe than listed
ailments. Non-application of mind vitiates
transfer order. Matter remitted to authority
to reconsider petitioner's medical case;
meanwhile, impugned transfer order dated
07.05.2025 quashed.

List of Cases cited:

1. U.O.I. Vs S.L. Abbas, (1993) 4 SCC 357
496 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
2. Mrs. Shilpi Bose & ors. Vs St. of Bihar & ors.,
AIR 1991 SC 532

3. Jitendra Singh Vs St. of U.P. & anr., Special
Appeal No. 564 of 2024 (Allahabad High Court)

4. A.L. Kalra Vs Project and Equipment
Corporation of India Ltd., (1984) 3 SCC 316
(referred through Jitendra Singh)

(Delivered by Hon'ble Ajit Kumar, J.)

1. Heard Sri Malik Juned Ahmad,
learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri
Saumitra Singh, learned counsel for the
respondent.

2. In compliance of earlier order of
this Court dated 16.5.2025 learned counsel
for the respondent has obtained instructions
in the matter and the same are taken on
record, copy whereof is also supplied to the
learned counsel for the petitioner.

3. Both learned Advocates agree
that matter can be disposed of considering
the stand taken by respondents in the
instruction.

4. Petitioner before this Court who
is working as Constable (GD) in the
Central Reserve Police Force and is
currently posted at Group Centre of the
Force at Prayagraj, is aggrieved by the
modified transfer order issued to him on
07th May, 2025.

5. Twin arguments have been
advanced by learned counsel for the
petitioner for assailing the order of transfer:

 (i) Even though petitioner had
completed three years of service posting at
Prayagraj and was in list of proposed
transfer for the year 2024-25, but since he
was suffering severely from disease called
"seizure disorder" and was undergoing
treatment at Swaroop Rani Nehru Hospital
Prayagraj, he may be permitted to continue
at Prayagraj itself so as to undergo
treatment and recover from the disease and
petitioner was permitted to continue at
Prayagraj as per special category/Retention
Policy contained in Clause 7 of the circular
letter issued by the Director General of
Central Reserve Police Force in the matter
on 27th September, 2022. However, now
when treatment is almost at the final stage
as per assurance given by Medical Officer
to him in the hospital, he ought to have
continued under the same Retention Policy
for another one year 2025-26.

(ii) Petitioner even though stood
transferred
despite
his
request
from
Prayagraj
to
Manipur
and
upon
representation being made, instead of
considering his retention at Prayagraj, his
station has been changed from Manipur to
Tiruvanantpuram
under
the
order
impugned, which according to him is not
only
against
the
policy,
but
sans
consideration of facts and the reasons
stated in the representation. Copy of the
representation has also been brought on
record as annexure 6 to the petition.

6. Meeting the submissions so
advanced by learned counsel for the
petitioner,
learned
counsel
for
the
respondent has placed paragraphs 2,3 and 5
of the instructions to defend the order of
transfer. Paragraphs 2,3, 4 and 5 of the
instructions are reproduced hereunder:

"2 It is a settled principle in law
that 'transfer is an incident of service, a
necessary concomitance of service made on
administrative grounds & in public interest'
and as such, the request/prayer of the
petitioner is in contravention of the orders
passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in UOI
5 All. Santosh Kumar Pal Vs. Union of India & Ors.
497
Vs S.L. Abbas((1993) 4 SCC 357) and Mrs
Shilpi Bose & Ors Vs State of Bihar & Ors
(AIR 1991 SC 532) wherein the Hon'ble
Court has held that it is within the
exclusive
domain
of
the
employer/administration
to
decide/determine as to what place and for
how long the service of a particular
employee are required'. It categorically
envisaged that the 'employee has no vested
right to get a posting at a particular place
or choose to serve at a particular place for
a particular time'.

3. Large proportion of the Force
is deployed in Jammu & Kashmir (J&K),
Left Wing Extremism (LWE) area & North
Eastern States (NES) and every Force
personnel is duty bound to serve honestly &
faithfully in all kinds of terrain as per
guidelines issued by GOI/MHA and Force
Head Quarters from time to time. As such,
an officer/official/personnel may be posted
to any Unit or Office at any point of time
and it is not administratively or practically
feasible to always post an official to his
place
of
choice/preference.
Being
a
member of the Force, the petitioner is also
bound to serve throughout the Country.

4. During the personal audience
with Director General of CRPF, New Delhi
considering
his
medical
prospective,
earlier transfer from GC CRPF Prayagraj
to 143 Bn has been cancelled and
allotted/posted
to
198
Bn,
CRPF
Vishakhapattanam, Andhra Pradesh since
having very good medical facilities.

5. Further, GC CRPF Prayagraj
having 79 personnel of low medical
category out of 359 personnel and mostly,
native of Uttar Pradesh have to be relieved
on transfer on completion of their normal
tenure of 03 years, so that those posted in
very difficult area get an opportunity to
serve in this relatively soft area. If the
petitioner is given one more year of service
extension at Group Centre Prayagraj then
other personnel may also demand similar
extension for one reason or other. The
department is not in a position to retain
more low medical category personnel, who
are residents of Uttar Pradesh in service in
Uttar Pradesh. This will have an adverse
effect on other needy personnel who are
residents of Uttar Pradesh but presently
serving in difficult area."

7.
Learned
counsel
for
the
petitioner has further submitted before the
Court that except for the disease from
which petitioner was suffering, there is no
other reason why petitioner would no be
accepting transfer and petitioner is ready to
give undertaking that if he is retained for
another one year at Prayagraj, he would get
his treatment concluded or even if not
concluded, he would happily accept the
transfer order in the next year i.e. 2026-27.

8. Having heard learned counsel for
the respective parties and having perused
the records, I find here only question to be
arising in this case, whether the petitioner
could have been retained at Prayagraj for
another period of one year as he claimed
that treatment is almost at the final stage,
more especially when he is ready to give
undertaking that he would accept transfer
next year.

9. In order to appreciate the
argument advanced by learned counsel for
the respective parties, I proceed to examine
the relevant provisions contained under the
circular letter issued by the Director
General.
The
relevant
Clause
7
is
reproduced hereunder:

 "7. Special Category/Retention

Any officer/official/personnel can
apply for special category/retention. Only
498 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
exceptional and genuine cases will be
considered under these two categories. If
any officer/official/personnel feel that his
case should be considered separately under
Special or retention, then he will have to
apply along with required documents
asmain grounds for considering under this
category.

Merely applying under these
categories does not create any right for
posting under these categories. The Board
of officers at Unit/Sector/Directorate level
will scrutinize their cases and only suitable
cases will be finally allowed. If found
suitable, he may be posted considering the
request, facilities of treatment, provision to
keep family, available vacancies and other
administrative/ operational constraints etc.,
to a suitable places which may even be
different from preferences given. The cases
which can be considered under this
category may be as under:-

(1) On Medical grounds

Posting
of
officers/officials/personnel
on
medical
grounds (including spouse and children)
suffering from following illness may be
considered based on the request or as per
availability of treatment facilities subject to
availability of vacancy. Their posting may
be considered as per their status of health
as certified by Medical officer/Composite
Hospital or recent medical documents:-

1) Infertility
2)
Cancer
3)Paral
ytic
Stroke
4)
Ren
al
Fail
ure
5)
Coronary
artery
disease,Thalas
semia,
6)
Parkins
on's
disease
7)
Motorneuron
disease

10. From a bare reading of the
aforesaid provisions, it clearly transpires
that retention policy has been framed by the
respondent, which is to be applied in
exceptional and genuine cases. Retention
Policy further states that merely because an
employee has made an application to fall in
the said category would not be taken to be a
genuine case and every case has to be
scrutinized accordingly to render it to be
suitable or non suitable. The suitability
would depend upon various variables like
treatment facility availability of medical
hospitals, doctors and other exceptional
cases which may be necessary to undergo
treatment
at
transferred
station
in
comparison to the station where employees
is currently posted. The policy further laysdown
certain
medical
grounds
like
infertility, cancer, paralytic stroke, renal
failure,
coronary
artery
disease,
Thalassaemia, Parkinson's disease, Motorneuron disease. The provisions also refer to
certain autistic child, an employee may be
having for which considerations are alleged
to be accorded.

11. The question what would be
disease that would fall in exceptional
category and words and expression genuine
cases is to definitely depend upon the facts
of a particular case. Petitioner claims to be
suffering from "seizure disorder" and to
this effect medical papers have been
brought on record as annexure 1 with
further CT Scan reports of the brain. Prima
facie, looking to the papers and the
documents relating to diagnosis like CT
scan of brain etc. and the medical
prescription, papers obtained from the
hospitals and the continued treatment at the
composite
hospital
Prayagraj,
namely
Swaroop Rani Nehru Hospital Prayagraj in
my considered view this would fall in a
category of 'genuine cases'. These details
5 All. Santosh Kumar Pal Vs. Union of India & Ors.
499
regarding treatment though were there in
the representation made by the petitioner
on 8.4.2025 against his initial transfer from
Prayagraj
to
Manipur,
but
authority
concerned failed to discuss them at all, nor
even referred to medical papers and just
mechanically changed place of station from
Manipur to Visakhapatnam. If the order is
tested upon transfer policy as laid down
under the circular letter issued by Director
General of Central Reserve Police Force,
one would not find this order to be passing
the test for the reason that though the board
of officers at the Unit/Sector/Directorate
Level was under obligation to scrutinize
each individual cases, once application was
filed for retention under the special
category/retention policy and yet absolutely
non speaking order has been passed.
Consideration of request qua treatment
under
which
individual
employee
is
undergoing, facilities available at the
station where he is being transferred and
distance, convenience availability from
place of batallion to the hospital looking to
the nature of disease and emergency of
medical attention that may be required
from time to time, all these aspects are to
be discussed comparatively to find an
answer as to whether case concerned is
falling in exceptional and genuine cases'
category. Thus, there has to be not only just
application of mind, but due application of
mind to the papers filed by individual
praying for relief from proposed transfer or
change of station under transfer as the case
may be. If an order passed up upon a
representation is a non speaking one, this
itself would be a sufficient ground to quash
such an order.

12. It is apt here to refer medical
grounds which are 7 in number. The
disease mentioned, in my considered view,
cannot form an exhaustive list. A person
suffering from "seizure disorder" is a a
more ailing person to the one suffering
from Parkinson's disease and therefore, the
authority while considering the request
made on medical grounds will not be
strictly restricting itself to the categories
provided under the policy but would be
certainly enquired to look into and discuss
the disease for which the request for
retention at a station is made and if disease
is found to be severe more than those
mentioned as medical grounds under the
policy or even at par with them, the
authority will not shirk away from its duty
to hold such cases to be genuine and
exceptional cases so as to give benefit of
retention policy to such employee.

13. Coming to the stand taken by the
respondent in the relevant part of the instructions,
which has been reproduced above in the order,
the Court does not find there to be any quarrel
about legal principles that employer is in a best
position to consider whether its employee is to be
retained at the station or to be transferred in
administrative exigency or public interest. The
Court also does not find there to be any dispute
with regard to principle that transfer being
incidence of service, an employee cannot have
indefeasible right to be retained at a particular
station even for ordinary medical reasons or
other family reasons. There is also no quarrel in
the matter of transfer in armed forces of country
including Border Security Force and Central
Reserve Police Force wherein a personnel may
be required to be posted at a hard station also and
there could not be choice to be given priority in
matter of transfer and posting and there is equally
no quarrel about this principle that everybody
cannot be taken at par whenever he comes with
medical reasons to question the transfer, but I
find here that the department itself has carved out
exception to the general rule by incoperating a
retention policy and therefore, every transfer
order where request is made by the personnel or
500 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
employee to be retained on medical grounds,
then authorities ceased with such matter are hidebound in law to apply their mind to the request
made and discuss medical ground and medical
papers so as to find out to as to whether case falls
in genuine and exceptional category cases or not
as per Retention Policy.

14. It is true that the transfer policies are
not to be enforced by Courts ordinarily but it is
equally true that if the employer rolls out a
transfer policy giving benefit of exceptional
circumstances, it should honour to its own policy
as it should not be a waste paper document.
Authorities are expected to go by it as far as
possible.

15. Very recently in the judgment, this
Court in the case of Jitendra Singh v. State of
U.P and Another (Special Appeal No. 564 of
2024) has held that when the government has
framed transfer policy through government
order, it is bound to follow the same, however,
there may be exceptional circumstances where
for the reasons to be recorded employee may
take stand that transfer policy though laid down
but provisions cannot be invoked in public
interest or administrative exigency. The relevant
portion of the judgment is reproduced hereunder:

 "6. Learned Single Judge also erred
in law when he held in the order that the transfer
policy is only directory in nature and, therefore,
it did not bind the officials who were passing the
order impugned in the writ petition. We are of
the view that when there is a Government
Order/Transfer Policy of the State then there is a
legitimate expectation of the employee that the
advantages which flowed from the Government
Order would be made applicable to that
employee. Definitely as per the law laid down in
A.L. Kalra (supra), a Government Order had a
binding force on the Authority which had issued
it and which was taking advantage of it."

16. In the given facts and circumstances
of this case, therefore, the Court considers it
appropriate to remit the matter to the authority to
reassess the medical papers of the petitioner in
the matter of his request for benefit under the
Retention Policy. The authority is also directed to
consider the sympathetic request of the petitioner
to be retained for another one year at his current
police station if he undertakes before the
competent respondent to retain him at Prayagraj
itself to another year i.e. 2025-26.

17. Thus, this writ petition is disposed
of with above observations and directions. In the
circumstances
the
order
dated
7.5.2025
transferring the petitioner from Prayagraj to
Visakhaptnam impugned as annexure 7 to the
petition is quashed.

18. The petition is accordingly disposed
of.
----------
(2025) 5 ILRA 500
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 23.05.2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SAURABH SHYAM
SHAMSHERY, J.

Writ A No. 7118 of 2022
With other connected cases

Neha Sharma & Ors. ...Petitioners
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioners:
Sri Alok Mishra, Sri Durvesh Kumar

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri
Rajeshwar
Tripathi,
C.S.C.,
Sri
Awadhesh C. Srivastava, Addl. C.S.C.,
Brijesh Narayan, Mewa Lal Gupta, Brijendra