Page No.# 1/6 GAHC010106742025 2026:GAU-AS:11929 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/2732/2025 ASSISTANT SUB-INSPECTOR MALATI DEVI FORCE NO. 973030021, D/O. LATE SURJYA KANTA NATH, R/O. HOUSE NO. 695, NEAR LACHIT NAGAR BUS STOP, P.O. ULUBARI, P. S. PALTAN BAZAR, DIST. KAMRUP (M), ASSAM, PIN 781007. VERSUS THE UNION OF INDIA AND 5 ORS REPRESENTED 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 INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE NORTH EASTERN SECTOR CENTRAL RESERVE POLICE FORCE SHILLONG MEGHALAYA PIN 793001. 5:THE DY. INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE CENTRAL RESERVE POLICE FORCE GROUP CENTRE AMERIGOG Page No.# 2/6 PIN 781316. 6:THE COMMANDANT GROUP CENTRE AMERIGOG GUWAHATI 9TH MILE CENTRAL RESERVE POLICE FORCE ASSAM PIN 781316 Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. R MAZUMDAR, MS T WAPANGLA,MR. D GOGOI,MR. R DEKA,MS T WAPANGLA,MR P RAI Advocate for the Respondent : DY.S.G.I., MR. A K DUTTA (C.G.C) BEFORE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE NELSON SAILO O R D E R 20.08.2026 Heard Mr. D. Gogoi, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. A.K. Dutta, learned CGC appearing for the respondents. Having regard to the controversy, the matter is taken up for disposal. 2. The petitioner had earlier approached this Court by filing WP(C) No.2928/2024 against her transfer order dated 19.02.2024, whereby she was transferred from Guwahati to West Bengal (Mahila Battalion). However, during the pendency of the writ petition, the Court was informed that the transfer order has been cancelled and the petitioner had been retained in Guwahati till the Summer Chain Transfer-2025. Accordingly, the writ petition was closed vide order dated 24.01.2025. Thereafter, the petitioner approached this Court again through WP(C) No.1239/2025 and this time against the order dated 31.01.2025, by which she was transferred on promotion to 232 (M) Battalion, CRPF. The main ground Page No.# 3/6 taken by the petitioner was that her mother is a disabled person and there is no other member in the family available to look after her mother and therefore, the transfer would be detrimental to the health of her mother and accordingly, the petitioner had initiated the said writ petition. The writ petition was disposed of vide order dated 28.03.2025 by asking the petitioner to file an application before the respondent authority concerned with all particulars, who in turn will examine the same in the light of the Office Memorandum dated 02.02.2024, which provided certain exemption for caregiver of persons with disability from routine transfer/rotational transfer. The petitioner was directed to submit a representation within a period of one week from the date of the order and the respondent authority concerned to dispose of the same within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of the representation and till such time, the interim protection granted to the petitioner was to remain operational. 3. In terms of the aforesaid direction, the petitioner submitted her representation and the respondent authority concerned vide order dated 13.05.2025, disposed of the same by rejecting her representation while asking her to proceed to report to the place of transfer at the earliest. Aggrieved, the petitioner has initiated the instant writ petition. 4. During the pendency of the instant writ petition, the petitioner on 13.06.2025 submitted an application to the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Group Centre, CRPF, Guwahati, requesting that she be allowed to go on voluntary retirement w.e.f. 30.09.2025. Her application was considered and allowed vide Office Order dated 25.06.2025. It was ordered that the petitioner shall be struck off from the strength of the Group Centre w.e.f. 30.09.2025 (forenoon). However, the petitioner later Page No.# 4/6 changed her mind as she thought that her proceeding on voluntary retirement would not be in the best interest of herself and her mother and therefore, she submitted an application before the same authority on 11.09.2025 seeking recall of her application for voluntary retirement while expressing that if her transfer order came, she will be willing to proceed on transfer. The respondent authorities upon considering the same, decided to recall the order by which her application for voluntary retirement was accepted vide Office Order dated 23.09.2025. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondent authorities accepted the fact that DoPT guidelines issued vide Office Memorandum dated 08.10.2018 provides certain exemption for Government employees, who are caregiver of dependent, son, parents, spouse etc., with special disability certificate by the competent authority in terms of the benchmark disability as defined under Section 2(r) of Rights of Persons with Disability Act, 2016 (in short Act of 2016). He also submits that caregiver is also defined under Section 2(d) of the Act of 2016. Such being the position, the respondent authorities should be directed to reconsider the case of the petitioner since she is the caregiver of her mother, who is a disabled person. 6. Mr. A.K. Dutta, learned CGC on the other hand submits that such consideration was already made by the respondent authorities and the petitioner in fact had undertaken that she will abide by the transfer order while seeking for withdrawal of her voluntary retirement application. Therefore, the petitioner cannot have any legitimate grievance under the facts and circumstances. 7. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsels for Page No.# 5/6 the rival parties and have perused the materials available on record. 8. The petitioner in WP(C) No.1239/2025 had raised the same grievance about being a caregiver of her disabled mother and it was under such circumstances that the Court had permitted her to submit a representation before the respondent authorities for their consideration in terms of the relevant guidelines in this regard. Upon such consideration, her application came to be rejected vide order dated 13.05.2025. One aspect of the matter which had been highlighted in the impugned rejection order is that exemption of a caregiver is with regard to routine transfer or rotational transfer subject to administrative constraint. Further, apart from considering the health problems of the petitioner’s mother and other administrative constraint, the respondent authorities concerned had also observed that proper treatment facility is available in the new place of posting of the petitioner as the 232 (M) Battalion of the CRPF is mainly concentrated at Durgapur, West Bengal. Further consideration was that the petitioner has completed 05(five) years 10(ten) months in her present place of posting on the date of passing of the impugned order and therefore, taking into account all these aspects of the matter, her representation came to be rejected. The same, in the considered view of this Court, cannot be termed to be unreasonable especially when the petitioner herself has also gave an undertaking that she is ready to go on transfer if her application for voluntary retirement is recalled. 9. Accordingly, upon due consideration, this Court does not find that the petitioner can be said to have a legitimate grievance under the facts and circumstances and accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed by leaving the parties to bear their own cost. Page No.# 6/6 10. However, before parting with the records, it is hereby provided that the respondent authorities shall give the petitioner a minimum of 10(ten) days time from today to proceed to the new place of posting considering the preparation that may be required to be made in view of the health condition of her mother. JUDGE Comparing Assistant