'Be sympathetic', HC tells BSF; quashes SI's transfer

'Be sympathetic', Karnataka HC tells BSF; quashes SI's transfer order on medical grounds

It was argued that the petitioner was posted to Bengaluru on his request on medical grounds

Karnataka High Court. Credit: DH file photo

The High Court of Karnataka has quashed the transfer order issued to a sub-inspector of the Border Security Force (BSF) after considering that his wife is undergoing treatment for cancer in Bengaluru.

The court said the BSF ought to have deployed a streak of sympathy in the case.

The petitioner started his service in 1986 as a constable and has worked at various places across the country, including Jammu and Kashmir. After completing 35 years of service, he placed a request for retention in Bengaluru stating that he is suffering from arthritis while his wife is being treated for cancer.

The petitioner approached the high court challenging a movement order issued to him on January 9, 2021 transferring him from Bengaluru to Kashmir.

It was argued that the petitioner was posted to Bengaluru on his request on medical grounds. However, contrary to the rules, he is now being transferred before the completion of his minimum tenure.

The counsel representing the BSF argued that a soldier cannot insist he should be in a particular place and he is open for transfer to any part of the country owing to the exigencies of service.

Justice M Nagaprasanna observed that the petitioner was declared to be low medical category personnel after being assessed by the medical board.

The court also pointed out that the petitioner’s wife was diagnosed with cancer in 2009 and she is undergoing treatment at the Kidwai Memorial Institute of Oncology in the city. 

“Therefore, the BSF ought to have deployed a streak of sympathy in the peculiar facts of the case of the petitioner, notwithstanding the fact that the petitioner being a part of the battalion will have to move once the battalion moves,” the court said.

The court quashed the movement order and all orders taken up pursuant to the movement order. The court also said that the petitioner is entitled to all consequential benefits that would flow from the quashing of the movement order.

Get a round-up of the day's top stories in your inbox

Check out all newsletters

Get a round-up of the day's top stories in your inbox