Aparesh Kumar Singh, J. - (1.) HEARD learned counsel for the parties.
(2.) CHALLENGE has been made to the letter dated 26.11.2014 issued by the Assistant Commandant (Dis.) on behalf of the Inspector General, Training Centre and School, Hazaribag, whereby he has been informed that the Force Headquarter after sympathetic consideration of his representation made against his transfer to 44 Battalion, B.S.F., Silong Region has been inclined to revoke the same and post him at 03 Battalion Shishubal, Kolkata (near South Bengal). Petitioner has challenged the same on the ground that he has been declared as 100% disabled person on account of injury sustained on 10.9.1992 in a militant action while deployed in Jammu and Kashmir. The Medical Board declared him 100% disabled on 11.6.1999. He has been posted at Training Center and School, Hazaribag since 16.1.1996 where he reported on 6.2.1996. In the service career of the petitioner, thereafter, there has been a chequered history as he was removed on medical ground w.e.f. 17.2.2000. Pursuant to the decision of the Patna High Court on 4.3.2002, remitting the matter to the respondents to take a decision in accordance with the provision of Persons with Disabilities(Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation), Act 1995, the respondents reinstated him in service with retrospective effect. He was again subjected to Medical Board on 9.11.2004, which declared him unfit for further service of any kind on account of his suffering from 'Traumatic Paraplegia with weakness of both lower limbs' leading to 100% disability. He was again retired from Government service w.e.f. 31.1.2005. Petitioner being aggrieved challenged the order of his retirement before this Court and finally he was again taken back in service. Learned Division Bench of this Court in the judgment passed on 28.8.2014 in L.P.A. No. 415 of 2008 directed the respondents to grant him all consequential benefits.
(3.) IT is submitted that petitioner despite having faced 100% disability is being victimized again and again on the part of the respondent after any order passed by this Court in his favour, such as in L.P.A. No. 415 of 2008. The impugned transfer is only an incidence of such victimization. It is submitted that sympathetic consideration ought to have been accorded to the case of the petitioner who has also been issued the impugned movement order on 28.1.2015, which is at Annexure -5 to the writ petition.;