A two-judge bench of Justice Rajiv Sahai Endlwa and Justice Asha Menon said, “We are of the view that considering that the petitioner and his wife, in spite of 11 years of marriage, have no child till now and considering the nature of the pregnancy of the wife of the petitioner, the said pregnancy cannot be treated as an ordinary/natural one, which is informed to be not a ground for interfering with the transfer and the respondents CRPF should consider the matter in this light and even if unable to accommodate the petitioner in Delhi for one year as sought, should consider accommodating the petitioner in Delhi for about six months at least.”
The petition has been filed by a CRPF Constable, challenging the transfer order dated 3/02/2020 and movement order dated 26/11/2020, on ground that he has not received the transfer order and only got to know about the transfer when he received his Movement Order to report at Chhattisgarh. The petitioner has sought the relief on humanitarian grounds. He said his wife is six months pregnant after his 11 years of marriage for the first time and for her regular treatment, he has to remain in Delhi. This, he pleaded, was because the pregnancy became possible only through In Vitro Fertilisation (IVF) in Delhi and his wife has to regularly visit the clinic.
The Counsel for the CRPF and Assistant Commander opposed the petition and submitted that pregnancy of the wife is not a ground for cancelling or deferring the transfer. They have also stated that the petitioner, in spite of being relieved from Delhi on November 26, 2020, did not join duty at Chhattisgarh and he is not performing his duty, neither at Delhi nor at Chhattisgarh.
The Court responded that considering the fact that in spite of 11 years of marriage, the petitioner has no child and considering the nature of the pregnancy of the wife of the petitioner, the said pregnancy cannot be treated as an ordinary/natural one, which is informed to be not a ground for interfering with the transfer order.
The Court further said with respect to the contention of the CRPF that the Petitioner in spite of being relieved on 26/11/2020, has not reported at the transferred place and not performed his duty anywhere, found to be in merit but not to the extent of entailing the dismissal of the petition.
The Delhi High Court said, “We request Assistant Commandant Anil Thakur to have the request of the petitioner and as recorded herein-above, examined by the appropriate authority before the next date of hearing and to report.” The matter would now be heard on January 12.