Page No.# 1/5 GAHC010032912026 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/974/2026 CONSTABLE/DRIVER PANKAJ SAIKIA FORCE NO. 105132137, S/O- BAGADHAR SAIKIA, R/O VILL- BONAI KALIA PANI GAON, P.O- AMTOL, P.S- BHAGAMUKH, DISTRICT- JORHAT, PIN- 785682, PRESENTLY POSTED AT COMPOSITE HOSPITAL, CRPF, AMERIGOG, GUWAHATI, ASSAM VERSUS THE UNION OF INDIA AND 3 ORS REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS, NEW DELHI- 110003 2:THE DIRECTOR GENERAL CENTRAL RESERVE POLICE FORCE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT OFFICE COMPLEX NEW DELHI- 110001 3:THE DEPUTY INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE (ESTABLISHMENT) DIRECTORATE GENERAL CENTRAL RESERVE POLCE FORCE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT OFFICE COMPLEX NEW DELHI- 110001 4:THE INSPECTOR GENERAL (MEDICAL) CENTRAL RESERVE POLOCE FORCE COMPOSITE HOSPITAL AMERIGOG GUWAHATI ASSAM. PIN- 78131 Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. D GOGOI, MS T WAPANGLA Page No.# 2/5 Advocate for the Respondent : DY.S.G.I., MR. K GOGOI(C.G.C.) BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SOUMITRA SAIKIA ORDER 18.05 .2026 Heard Mr. D. Gogoi, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. K. Gogoi, learned CGC for the respondents. 2. The petitioner is aggrieved by the impugned order of transfer issued to the petitioner on 05.01.2026. In terms of the said order, the petitioner was transferred from the Composite Hospital Guwahati to the battalion being 243 BN, which is stated to be located at New Delhi. The said order reflects the remark “SPECIAL”, indicating that the petitioner’s matter was a specially considered. It is submitted that the petitioner's spouse is suffering from “Papillary Carcinoma Thyroid (Cancer)”, since the year of 2017 and is currently undergoing treatment. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that as per the standing order issued by the Director General of Central Reserve Police Force dated 27.09.2022 certain categories are specified, which are exempted from the Summer Chain Transfers (SCT). 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner by referring to Clause No.7(i) of the said standing order submits that on medical grounds, suffering from certain illnesses which includes cancer, the transfer of the officers can be reconsidered by the authorities. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there is Page No.# 3/5 no dispute raised by the respondents that the petitioner's spouse is not suffering from cancer/carcinoma. As a consequence thereof, the petitioner is entitled to be considered and conferred the benefits under clause 7(i) of the said standing order. However, the same not having been done, the petitioner filed a representation before the authorities concerned, which stood rejected without any reasons being cited by the respondent authorities. Under such circumstances, the petitioner is before this Court. 5. The learned CGC for the respondents disputes the contentions raised by the petitioner. The respondents have filed their affidavit contesting the claims made by the petitioner drawing the averments made in paragraph No. 2 of the said affidavit. It is submitted that the petitioner has already spent 10 years in his home State during his entire service career of 15 years, and apart from this, was also granted one year retention during the SCT 25 on medical grounds and further, the petitioner has been transferred from Composite Hospital, CRPF, Guwahati to 243 Battalion, New Delhi as a special case, as better medical facilities are available in New Delhi. He therefore, submits that there is no infirmity in the order of transfer. 6. The learned CGC further submits that the petitioner has not completed 6(six) years cooling-off period required for subsequent posting in the home State and therefore, he was required to be transferred out, and as a special case being considered by the authorities, the petitioner stood transferred to the 243 Battalion which is posted in New Delhi. 7. The petitioner reiterated his contentions by filing a rejoinder affidavit. Page No.# 4/5 8. The learned counsel for the parties have been heard and the pleadings available on record have been carefully perused. 9. There is no quarrel that Clause 7(i) of the Standing Order dated 27.09.2022 prescribes exemption from transfer in cases of the officers or personnel, including the spouse or children suffering from any of the medical conditions. The petitioner's spouse is suffering from the medical condition which is listed at Serial No.2 of Clause No. 7(i). The learned CGC does not dispute that there is no medical report referred to by the respondents from the Composite Hospital of CRPF that the petitioner's spouse will have the benefits of better treatment and more specific treatment in New Delhi, rather than the treatment which is being undergone in the Composite Hospital of CRPF, Guwahati. The representation filed by the petitioner reflects that the same was rejected. No grounds were cited therein. 10. In the affidavit in opposition, the reasons for rejection of the petitioner's case have been elaborated. However, no extract of any of the records or communications have been placed on record to demonstrate that such a decision was indeed taken by the authorities by examining all the relevant parameters, including the standing order and the reports of any treating doctors of the Composite Hospital were taken into account. Under such circumstances, this Court is of the considered view that in absence of any records being placed before the Court, the reasons which are sought to be projected before the Court by way of an affidavit, cannot be accepted with the reasons on which the representation to be rejected. The reasons for rejection of the representation are bound to be supported by the relevant records. Page No.# 5/5 11. Under such circumstances, this Court is of the considered view that this matter requires reconsideration by the respondent authorities. Accordingly, this Court directs the respondent authorities to revisit the representation filed by the petitioner against his transfer, taking into account the special category of retention clause specified at clause 7(i) of the Standing Order dated 27.09.2022 and any choice of posting, which are given by the petitioner in his representation dated 07.01.2026, the same aspect of the matter would be considered by the respondent authorities along with the medical reports if required as medical opinion and reports of the Composite Hospital, CRPF under which the spouse of the writ petitioner is presently undergoing treatment. Upon due consideration of the entire matter, the respondent authorities will pass a speaking order on the claims made by the writ petitioner. Needless to say, a copy thereof shall be served on the writ petitioner. 12. The entire exercise will be completed within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this order. The impugned order dated 10.02.2026 rejecting the representation of the writ petitioner therefore, stands interfered with and set aside. 13. Till such order is passed by the authorities concerned as directed by this Court, the petitioner shall not be released from his present place of posting. 14. With the above observations this writ petition stands disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant