PARMANAND SINGH v. THE UNION OF INDIA THROUGH DIRECTORATE GENERAL, CENTRAL RESERVE POLICE FORCE,
WPC/1714/2025 · 2025-04-15
Deepak Roshan
body2025
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 8795 (JHR) · dailylaw.ai ]
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 8795 (JHR) · dailylaw.ai ]
Judgment text
Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
2025:JHHC:11351 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P. (S) No. 1714 of 2025
--------- Parmanand Singh, aged about 47 years, Son of Late Kamdeo Singh, Resident of Village Maniarchak, P.O.-Piri Bazar, P.S.-Piri Bazar, District -Lakhisarai, State- Bihar.
....Petitioner
Versus
1. The Union of India through Directorate General Central Reserve Police Force, P.O. - C.G.O. Complex, P.S. Lodhi Colony, Lodhi Road, New Delhi 110003.
2. Inspector General of Police (Pes and H.Qrs.) DTE General C.R.P.F., P.O. - C.G.O. Complex, P.S. Lodhi Colony, Lodhi Road, New Delhi 110003.
3. Deputy Inspector General, (ESTT.) DTE, Central Reserve Police Force, Block No. 1 CGO Complex, P.O. - C.G.O. Complex, P.S. Lodhi Colony, Lodhi Road, New Delhi – 110003.
4. Commandant 11th B.N. C.R.P.F. Block Colony, Latehar, P.O Latehar, P.S. Latehar, District Latehar (Jharkhand)
....Respondents
---------
CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN
--------- For the Petitioner : Mr. Suraj Singh, Advocate For the Resp.-UOI : Mr. Anil Kumar, A.S.G.I
Ms. Niki Sinha, C.G.C.
--------- 02/Dated:-15.04.2025
1.
Heard both sides.
2.
The instant writ application has been preferred by the petitioner praying for quashing of order dated 30.01.2025 issued by the 3rd respondent, whereby the petitioner has been transferred from 11 Battalion (011-BN) to 95 Battalion (095-BN).
3.
Learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that he is having a genuine difficulty with the transfer order, inasmuch as, he is facing some criminal trial in the Court at Lakhisarai. He further submits that he has also filed a representation before the
2025:JHHC:11351 2 superior authority for considering his case sympathetically. However, his representation has been rejected vide order dated
31.03.2025. Learned counsel produced the said order dated 31.03.2025; which is taken on record.
4.
Learned A.S.G.I. appearing for the Respondents submits that it is a general transfer order and it cannot be said in any manner that it is a punitive transfer and certainly for any issues, if the petitioner will apply for leave; he will be granted leave in accordance with the Rules of the Battalion.
5.
Having regard to the aforesaid facts and circumstances and looking to the order of transfer, it is clear that it is a general transfer which has been approved by the competent authority; as such, I don’t find any reason to interfere with this transfer order.
6.
Accordingly, the writ petition stands rejected.
(Deepak Roshan, J.) vikas/-