Page No.# 1/6 GAHC010025452025 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/744/2025 RAMJAN ALI AHAMED S/O- LATE HABIBAR RAHAMAN, R/O- BABUPARA BYE LANE 1, DINHATA MUNICIPALITY WARD NO. 2, DIST- KOCH BIHAR, WEST BENGAL PIN- 736135, PRESENNT ADDRESS HOUSE NO. GS 1775531 MSWPNR, C/O- 99 APO, EASTERN BASE WORKSHOOP GREF BP TINIALI, TEZPUR, ASSAM, PIN-784151, DIST- SONITPUR, ASSAM VERSUS THE UNION OF INDIA THROUGH THE SECY GOVT OF INDIA, MINISTRY OF DEFENCE, BORDER ROADS WING, 4TH FLOOR B WING, SENA BHAWAN, NEW DELHI- 110011 2:THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF BORDER ROADS ORGANISATION MINISTRY OF DEFENCE GOVT OF INDIA SEEMA SADAK BHAWAN RING ROAD DELHI CANTT NEW DELHI 3:THE OFFICER IN CHARGE RECORD OFFICE GENERAL RESERVE ENGINEER FORCE DIGHT CAMP BUS STOP MAAHASKIBASTI ST DNYANESHWAR ROAD KUSMADE COLONY KALAS PUNE MAHARASHTRA- 411015 4:MAJOR Page No.# 2/6 RECORD OFFICE GENERAL RESERVE ENGINEER FORCE DIGHT CAMP BUS STOP MAAHASKIBASTI ST DNYANESHWAR ROAD KUSMADE COLONY KALAS PUNE MAHARASHTRA- 411015 5:SENIOR ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER STAFF OFFICER RECORD OFFICE GENERAL RESERVE ENGINEER FORCE DIGHT CAMP BUS STOP MAAHASKIBASTI ST DNYANESHWAR ROAD KUSMADE COLONY KALAS PUNE MAHARASHTRA- 411015 6:THE COMMANDANT EASTERN BASE WORKSHOP (EBW) GENERAL RESERVE ENGINEER FORCE TEZPUR PIN-784151 C/O- 99 APO 7:ASSISTANT ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER ADDL. DGBR (EAST) GENERAL RESERVE ENGINEER FORCE JALUKBARI NEAR LANKESWAR TEMPLE GUWAHATI ASSAM PIN-78101 Advocate for the Petitioner : Md Fahad Faridi, MD F FARIDI Advocate for the Respondent : DY.S.G.I., MR. K K PARASAR Page No.# 3/6 B E F O R E HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE NELSON SAILO 13.02.2025 Heard Mr. F Faridi, learned counsel for the petitioner who submits that the petitioner is aggrieved with the Transfer Order dated 11.09.2024 and the rejection of his representation vide Communication dated 27.01.2025. The learned counsel submits that the petitioner has completed 29 years of service under the respondent organization and he had undergone surgery on 19.03.2021 in Bangalore. However, his condition did not improve and he has been declared to be 50% permanently disabled by the Medical Board. For this reason, the petitioner who is from West Bengal submitted an application for posting him near his home State on 30.08.2024. The said application was forwarded by the respondent authority concerned to the higher authority on 10.09.2024 but however, before the same could be considered, the posting order of the petitioner came to be issued on 11.09.2024. The petitioner again submitted his representation on 17.09.2024 which was also forwarded to the authority concerned. However, vide the Communication dated 27.01.2025, the application of the petitioner was rejected on the ground that the order of posting had already been issued and he asked to join his new place of posting and submit his application for transfer on compassionate ground from there. Page No.# 4/6 Aggrieved with the same, the petitioner is before this Court. [2.] The learned counsel submits that as per the Medical Board proceedings, he has been found to be 50% permanently disabled when he was posted in Srinagar (J&K) and now by the impugned order of posting, he has been transferred to Jamu Tawi. It is, therefore, on this account that the petitioner has expressed the difficulty to accept the new place of posting since he is 50% permanently disabled and posting in a high attitude area would cause him great difficulty. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner is also covered by the O.M dated 02.02.2024, which is a guidelines for certain facilities in respect of persons with disabilities who are already employed in Government for efficient performance of their duties. He submits that as far as possible, the persons with disability may be exempted from the rotational transfer policy/transfer and be allowed to continue with the same job where there would have achieve the desired performance. Further preference in place of posting at the time of transfer/promotion may be given to the persons with disability subject to the administrative constraints. The learned counsel submits that prior to issuance of the transfer order, the petitioner had already submitted his request for posting near his home station and therefore, the respondent authorities ought to have considered his application and not reject the same on Page No.# 5/6 ground of issuance of the transfer order by that time. [3.] Mr. K K Parasar, learned CGC, on the other hand, submits that the petitioner is also covered by an amendment to paragraph No. 29 of Chapter 24 of the Record Office Instructions 01/2019 wherein, it has been provided that employees who are declared with Bench Mark disability not less than 40% duly certified by the competent authority may be considered to the station where medical, educational, communicational facilities and connectivity are available on rotational basis subject to administrative constraints. The learned counsel submits that the place where the petitioner has been posted in Jamu Tawi has an Army base hospital nearby and therefore, the interest of the petitioner has been duly taken care of. [4.] Upon hearing the parties and on perusal of the materials available on record, this Court finds that a request letter was initiated by the petitioner on 30.08.2024 but however, the same could not be considered in terms of what the petitioner has stated regarding his 50% permanent disability. The respondent authority appears to have rejected on the application on the ground that his transfer and posting order had already issued. However, the same is not the case since the application was submitted as on 30.08.2024. Considering the fact that the petitioner has been issued a certificate by the Medical Board, Page No.# 6/6 categorizing him as 50% permanently disabled and taking into account the fact that the origin of his disability is from his posting in Srinagar (J&K), this Court is of the considered view that the representation/application submitted by the petitioner should be considered by the authorities concerned on merit. [5.] Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondent Nos. 2 & 3 to consider the application/representation submitted by the petitioner by taking into account the observations that has been made herein above. Such consideration may be done within a period of 3 (three) weeks from the date of a certified copy of this order. Till the representation is considered and disposed of by way of a Speaking Order, no coercive steps should be taken against the petitioner in terms of the impugned posting order. JUDGE Comparing Assistant