Bombay HC rejects relief to Army officer who refused transfer owing to son's disability

The Bombay High Court has said that national interest is above any other interest, including self-interest.

While disposing a petition regarding an army officer's insistence on staying on in Mumbai instead of being transferred to different locations across the country, Bombay High Court said that national interest is above any other interest, including self-interest.

“We, countrymen, take pride in having a defence force comprised of personnel who are willing to lay down their lives without any sense of fear or feelings as to what might happen if they are not there. For them, national interest is above any other interest including self-interest,” the bench said.

The bench further said, “As an officer associated with the defence of the country, which is of paramount importance, we expected the petitioner to be rational in his approach and actions and place national interest in the forefront. The facts and circumstances, somehow, impel us to observe that he lacks fraternal feelings.”

The petition was filed by a Lieutenant Colonel in 2016 who had been posted at the Embarkation Headquarters in Mumbai since January 2011.

The officer had been insisting for his continued posting at Mumbai as his elder son is having 100% disability on number of counts. He required special treatment which, according to the officer was available only in Mumbai.

However, the officer received two orders, one on October 6, 2015 and, other on February 2, 2016 which he challenged before the high court. The October 6 and February 2 orders informed him that his request for posting in Mumbai and extension of tenure stood regretted. He was requested to indicate his choice of stations within seven days of receipt thereof, failing which a posting order would be issued based on inputs available with the Military Secretary Branch.

The bench headed by Chief Justice Dipankar Datta, said that “It is perfectly understandable that as a doting and concerned father, the petitioner would seek to secure the wellbeing of the child and, therefore, leave no stone unturned to have his posting in Mumbai continued upon reversal/recall of the impugned order dated 6th October 2015 by the Branch.”