<p>The High Court of Karnataka has quashed a movement order that required a Border Security Force (BSF) inspector posted in Bengaluru to report for duty in Odisha, two years before his retirement. </p>.<p>In general parlance, there cannot be a movement order without a transfer order issued to a government servant, the court ruled. </p>.<p>A movement order is a type of operation order, containing instructions for the movement of units/officers from one location to another within a stated time. </p>.<p>T S Venkatesh, posted at Yelahanka, moved the court challenging the movement order dated February 8, 2021. He was to retire in April 2020 but his service was extended until April 2022 after the retirement age was increased from 58 years to 60 years. </p>.<p>Venaktesh argued that he is entitled to protection under Rule 10 of the Border Security Force (Tenure of Posting and Deputation) Rules, 2000, that prohibit terminal transfers. The BSF countered this, saying the petitioner is not entitled to posting at a particular place, more so when he is an officer of the disciplined force. It also contended that the officer was only issued a movement order, not a transfer order. </p>.<p>After hearing both the parties, Justice M Nagaprasanna observed that the BSF inspector was transferred and posted at various places during his 34 years of service.</p>.<p>The court noted that insulation from transfer two years before attaining the age of superannuation is a well-recognised principle in all rules or policy regulating transfers of personnel in every wing of the government. </p>.<p>“There is no extraordinary circumstance warranting transfer of the petitioner from Bengaluru to Odisha at the fag end of his career or his indispensability to be posted at Odisha is demonstrated by the respondents. Therefore, the order of transfer impugned is rendered unsustainable for it being contrary to the rules (supra),” the court said. </p>.<p>The court also refused to accept the BSF’s argument that it was only a movement order. “In general parlance, there cannot be a movement order without transferring a government servant.”</p>.<p>“Therefore, the contention of the learned counsel for the respondents that it is not a transfer order is at best a figment of his imagination,” the court said. </p>
<p>The High Court of Karnataka has quashed a movement order that required a Border Security Force (BSF) inspector posted in Bengaluru to report for duty in Odisha, two years before his retirement. </p>.<p>In general parlance, there cannot be a movement order without a transfer order issued to a government servant, the court ruled. </p>.<p>A movement order is a type of operation order, containing instructions for the movement of units/officers from one location to another within a stated time. </p>.<p>T S Venkatesh, posted at Yelahanka, moved the court challenging the movement order dated February 8, 2021. He was to retire in April 2020 but his service was extended until April 2022 after the retirement age was increased from 58 years to 60 years. </p>.<p>Venaktesh argued that he is entitled to protection under Rule 10 of the Border Security Force (Tenure of Posting and Deputation) Rules, 2000, that prohibit terminal transfers. The BSF countered this, saying the petitioner is not entitled to posting at a particular place, more so when he is an officer of the disciplined force. It also contended that the officer was only issued a movement order, not a transfer order. </p>.<p>After hearing both the parties, Justice M Nagaprasanna observed that the BSF inspector was transferred and posted at various places during his 34 years of service.</p>.<p>The court noted that insulation from transfer two years before attaining the age of superannuation is a well-recognised principle in all rules or policy regulating transfers of personnel in every wing of the government. </p>.<p>“There is no extraordinary circumstance warranting transfer of the petitioner from Bengaluru to Odisha at the fag end of his career or his indispensability to be posted at Odisha is demonstrated by the respondents. Therefore, the order of transfer impugned is rendered unsustainable for it being contrary to the rules (supra),” the court said. </p>.<p>The court also refused to accept the BSF’s argument that it was only a movement order. “In general parlance, there cannot be a movement order without transferring a government servant.”</p>.<p>“Therefore, the contention of the learned counsel for the respondents that it is not a transfer order is at best a figment of his imagination,” the court said. </p>
