Aparesh Kumar Singh, J. - (1.) HEARD counsel for the parties. The petitioner is aggrieved by the office order bearing no. 13898 -906 dated 24th April 2013 (Annexure -7) by which, he has been transferred from Training Centre and School, Border Security Force, Meru, Hazaribagh to 142 Battalion, Border Security Force, Assam.
(2.) THE primary ground for assailing the impugned order of transfer on behalf of the petitioner is that while discharging internal security duty at Phulwara in Kashmir Valley, he had sustained bullet injury on his right leg which led to its amputation. The petitioner became disabled to the extent of 60% on account of such disability, as per certificate issued by the competent authority on 10th July 1992. Thereafter, according to the petitioner, by Movement Order dated 03rd February 2000 issued by the competent authority of his parent 142 battalion, he was posted permanently at Training Centre and School, BSF, Hazaribagh (Annexure -3). Thereafter, when the respondents had issued a detachment order on 18th June 2005 to his parent 142 battalion, the petitioner had approached this Court vide WPS No. 3613/2005 where the movement order was stayed. However, the said detachment order was recalled by the respondent themselves and the writ petition was rendered infructuous. According to the petitioner, he has been sincerely discharging his duty at sedentary posting at Family Welfare Centre of T.C. & S, Border Security Force, Meru, Hazaribagh without any complaint. However, by the impugned order, he has once again been transferred to the 142 battalion at Assam, though he is suffering from 60% disability and was earlier permanently posted at Meru Centre. He also submits that the posting at 142 battalion in Assam is not a sedentary posting, rather a field posting, as would appear from the Movement Order issued on 9th September 2013, which is annexed as Annexure -12 to the supplementary affidavit. In such circumstances, it is submitted that the impugned order of transfer is bad in law and it should be quashed by allowing to petitioner to stay at the sedentary posting at Meru, Hazaribagh under the respondent BSF.
(3.) LEARNED counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, submits that the petitioner has in fact remained for 13 long years at the Training Centre and School, Meru, Hazaribagh pursuant to his posting on sedentary job after having attained disability during internal security operations in Kashmir Valley to the extent of 60%. However the petitioner cannot claim as a right to continue at a particular place of posting permanently on the basis of Border Security Force (Tenure of Posting and Deputation) Rules, 2000. He submits that in similar circumstances where such a person who had suffered 75% injury was transferred to another battalion from Meru Centre, he had approached this Court in WPS No. 1794/2005 (Upendra Kumar vs. Union of India & others). He submits that in the said case, this Court had categorically held that under the relevant rules (Supra), there is no legal right for such a personnel even suffering from disability to be permanently posted at a particular place. He can be posted in a sedentary job in peace time place and may not be compelled to move to a field posting involving regular and serious movement. In such circumstances, once the movement order has also been issued, there is no reason why the petitioner should be allowed to stay at Meru Centre, Hazaribagh where he has remained for almost 13 years.;