Page No.# 1/6 GAHC010087882025 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/2204/2025 MONUJ BISWAS S/O. MAHINDRA BISWAS, PRESENTLY SERVING AT CIAT-SLR, COUNTER INSURGENCY AND ANTI TERRORISM, SCHOOL, CRPF DOYAPORE, UDHARBAND, SILCHAR, DIST. CACHAR, ASSAM, PIN-788030. VERSUS THE UNION OF INDIA AND 4 ORS REP. BY THE SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS, NEW DELHI- 110003. 2:THE DIRECTOR GENERAL CENTRAL RESERVE POLICE FORCE CENTRAL GOVT. OFFICE COMPLEX NEW DELHI-110001. 3:THE DEPUTY INSPECTOR GENERAL (ESTABLISHMENT) OFFICE OF THE DIRECTORATE GENERAL CENTRAL RESERVE POLICE FORCE CENTRAL GOVT. OFFICE COMPLEX NEW DELHI-110001. 4:THE PRINCIPAL COUNTER INSURGENCY AND ANTI-TERRORISM SCHOOL CRPF DOYAPORE UDHARBAND SILCHAR DIST. CACHAR ASSAM PIN-788030. Page No.# 2/6 5:THE COMMANDANT 200 BATTALION LOCATED AT JAFFARPUR KALAN NEW DELHI PIN-110073 THROUGH THE RESPONDENT NO. 2 THE DIRECTOR GENERAL CENTRAL RESERVE POLICE FORCE CENTRAL GOVT. OFFICE COMPLEX NEW DELHI-110001 Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. R MAZUMDAR, MS T WAPANGLA,MR P RAI,S BORPUJARI,MR. R DEKA Advocate for the Respondent : DY.S.G.I., BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SOUMITRA SAIKIA ORDER 03.06.2025 Heard Mr. R. Mazumdar, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. RK Dev Choudhury, learned Deputy Solicitor General of India for the respondents. 2. The petitioner is before this Court putting to challenge the transfer order dated 31.03.2025 issued by the respondent authority, whereby the petitioner was transferred to his new place of posting and accordingly, the representation filed by the petitioner on 03.01.2025 was rejected. It is the case of the petitioner before this Court that he had submitted an application dated 03.01.2025 seeking voluntary retirement and as per the Standing Order Page No.# 3/6 No.04/2022 issued on 27.09.2012 which governs the transfer and posting of the Group A Officers (Up to the rank of Deputy Commandant), Group-B & C Officials/Personnel of the Force who are due to retire within 2 (two) years to be reckoned from the cutoff date, may be considered for terminal posting to his place of preference or to the nearby place/station/region covered by overnight journey by train provided he was not posted their in the previous tenure. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner had already filed an application seeking voluntary retirement and therefore, in terms of Clause No. 7 (VI) of the Standing Order No.04/2022, he ought to have been given his transfer to his place of posting or nearby place instead of his place of posting where he is directed to be transferred. This Court permitted the respondents to complete his instructions in the matter. 3. Learned DSGI upon instructions on 13.05.2025 informed that the petitioner had sought for voluntary retirement with effect from December, 2026. It is submitted that subsequently, the petitioner filed another application seeking voluntary retirement with effect from July, 2026. Accordingly, learned DSGI submitted that the Clause No.7 (VI) of the Standing Order No.04/2022 does not specifically refer to the cases where applications are filed for voluntary retirement. However, by order dated 28.05.2025, learned counsel for the petitioner was directed to obtain instructions as to whether the petitioner is Page No.# 4/6 willing to join his new place of posting or the petitioner will file an application for voluntary retirement without further delay and had fixed the matter today i.e. 03.06.2025. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in view of the leave granted by this Court, the petitioner has filed the application seeking voluntary retirement with effect from 31.07.2026. 4. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and upon careful perusal of the Standing Order No.04/2022 as well as the averments made in the writ petition, it is seen that the Standing Order No.04/2022 does not specifically cover cases where members of the force apply for the voluntary retirement. Apart from that, voluntary retirement is an offer made by the incumbent, which must be accepted by the competent authorities; only thereafter can the process for the incumbent’s exit on voluntary retirement be given effect to. In the facts of the present case, the petitioner is not seeking voluntary retirement within the next 6 (six) months. He has filed an application seeking voluntary retirement in the December, 2026 and subsequently, another application was filed seeking voluntary retirement with effect from 31.07.2026. Even assuming that the authorities proceed to process his request, the same is likely to take some time and that cannot be a ground to suspend the impugned transfer order dated 31.03.2025, that too, in a Disciplined Force like CRPF which is concerned with maintenance of the law and order and other security issues of the country. The Page No.# 5/6 petitioner also claims to be suffering from Diabetes and because of which he has been placed at low medical category and therefore, this is also a ground for the petitioner seeking voluntary retirement with effect from 31.07.2026. It is no longer res integra that transfer is a condition of service, more particularly, in the case of Disciplinary Forces. There is a detailed standing order which governs transfer policy of Group A Officers (Up to the rank of Deputy Commandant), Group-B & C Officials/Personnel of the Force. The petitioner is a constable and therefore, he is governed by the said policy. In terms of the policy, there is no restraint on transfer in respect of a person who has submitted an application seeking voluntary retirement, which is yet to be accepted or is under process of finalization by the Department. 5. Under such circumstances, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the impugned transferred order dated 31.03.2025. From the pleadings it is seen that the petitioner has been transferred to Delhi. Needless to say that his station at Delhi will have ample avenues for his medical treatment in the event the petitioner decides to undergo such treatment. This Court further made it clear that the closer of the writ petition will not be considered as a bar for the petitioner to file any further application for voluntary retirement or reconsideration of the impugned transferred order dated 31.03.2025 passed by the respondent authorities. Page No.# 6/6 6. Considering of the above, the writ petition stands closed. Interim order, passed earlier, stands vacated. It is made clear that the petitioner will be entitled to the extended time for joining, as per the rules, with effect from the date of closure of the writ petition, i.e., 03.06.2025. JUDGE Comparing Assistant