WA/319/2026 of ASST SUB-INSPECTOR MALATI DEVI FORCE NO 973030021 Vs THE UNION OF INDIA AND 5 ORS. on 27 August 2026

1. We have heard Mr. D. Gogoi, learned Advocate for the appellant, and Mr. A.K. Dutta, learned Central Government Counsel for the respondents No. 1 to 6.

2. The appellant, who is an Assistant Sub-Inspector in the Central Reserved Police Force (CRPF), stands transferred on a promoted post from Guwahati to West Bengal (“Mahila” Battalion) at Durgapur. She had earlier questioned her transfer on the ground of her ailing mother suffering from dementia.

3. The medical reports indicate that the mother of the appellant has been advised no change of place and 24 hours surveillance.

4. The appellant had earlier approached this Court for the same relief vide WP(C) No. 2928/2024, wherein, during the pendency of the writ petition the Court was informed that the transfer order had been cancelled and the appellant had been retained at Guwahati during the Summer Time Chain Transfer of 2025.

5. The appellant thereafter approached this Court again, vide WP(C) No. 1239/2025, against the order dated 31.01.2025, by which she was transferred on promotion to the 232 (M) Battalion of the CRPF. The challenge was on the ground of her mother being a disable person because of dementia, and she being the care giver of her mother.

6. A Bench of this Court then directed that in case the appellant files suitable application before the respondent/authority with all material particulars, it shall be examined by the authorities in correct perspective, in accordance with Office Memorandum dated 02.02.2024, which provides for exemption from routine transfer/ rotational transfer in respect of a Government employee, who is a care giver of dependent daughters/sons/ parents/spouses/brothers/sisters with specified disability, as certified by the certifying authority as a person with benchmark disability, as defined under Section 2(r) of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 (hereinafter to be referred as “Act of 2016”), subject to the administrative constraints.

7. In terms of such directions of this Court, and submission of representation by the appellant, the respondents rejected the representation submitted by the appellant with a direction to her to proceed to the place of her posting. The offer made by the appellant to forgo her promotion was also rejected in view of the fact that she had already served on the promoted post for about five years continuously.

8. The appellant thereafter made an application before the DIG (Police), Group Center, Guwahati, requesting that she be allowed to go on voluntary retirement with effect from 30.09.2025.

9. This request of the appellant was accepted and, by an order dated 25.06.2025, her name was struck off from the strength of Group Center, Guwahati, with effect from 30.09.2025.

10. After passing of such an order, the appellant changed her mind and made an application on 11.09.2025, before the same authority, i.e. DIG (Police), Group Center, CRPF, Guwahati, praying for recall of her application for voluntary retirement and also expressing her willingness, in case of such recall, to proceed to take charge at the transferred place.

11. This request again was accepted by the authority and a decision was taken to recall the order permitting her voluntary retirement.

12. However, again another writ petition was filed by the appellant, vide WP(C) No. 2732/2025, seeking annulment of her transfer on the ground of her being the care giver to her ailing mother.

13. The learned Single Judge, vide the impugned judgment, did not consider it to be expedient to accede to the request of the appellant/writ petitioner, especially in view of the fact that the appellant had served at the earlier station for more than seven years, and on the promoted post, at the same station, for five years. It was also found that the offer of the appellant to forego her promotion was irrelevant in as much she had already been promoted and stayed in the promotional post for quite some time.

14. Thus, while rejecting the request made by the appellant, the learned Single Judge has observed that the appellant shall be given ten days’ time, to be counted from the date of passing of the impugned judgment, to proceed to her new place of posting, keeping in mind the medical preparedness of the appellant’s mother to accompany her daughter to her new place of posting.

15. We find such order to be justified.

16. However, considering the fact that much time has already elapsed after passing of the judgment impugned, we, in the circumstances, direct that in case the appellant proceeds to her new place of posting on transfer, then she shall be given 15 (fifteen) clear days, to be counted from today, to join at the new place of her posting.

17. With such observations/directions, this writ appeal stands disposed off.

JUDGE CHIEF

JUSTICE Comparing Assistant