Khushi Bajpai
Published on :18 july,2022 at 22:09 IST
The Bombay High Court stated that “The national interest supersedes all other interests, including self-interest, while ruling on a petition over an army officer’s refusal to be transferred from Mumbai to other sites around the nation”.
“We, as countrymen, are proud to have a defence force made up of individuals who are prepared to give their life on the battlefield without concern for what may occur if they were not present. They prioritise national interest over all other interests, including personal interest”, the bench declared.
The bench continued, “We anticipated the petitioner to be reasonable in his approach and conduct and put the national interest in the forefront. After all, he is an officer involved in the defence of the country, which is of the utmost significance. Somehow, the situation and the facts compel us to conclude that he lacks fraternal feelings. A Lieutenant Colonel who had been assigned to the Embarkation Headquarters in Mumbai since January 2011 filed the case in 2016.”
The officer had been adamant about keeping his job in Mumbai because his older son is completely disabled in a variety of ways. He needed specialised care, which the official claimed was only accessible in Mumbai.
The officer, however, received two orders—one on October 6, 2015, and the second on February 2—which he contested in front of the Apex court. His requests for a posting to Mumbai and a tenure extension were regrettably denied, according to decisions issued on October 6 and February 2, respectively. He was asked to respond with his station preference within seven days of receiving the request; if he failed to do so, a posting order would be issued based on information held by the Military Secretary Branch.
The bench led by Chief Justice Dipankar Datta said “It is perfectly understandable that the petitioner would seek to secure the wellbeing of the child as a doting and concerned father 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,”
The panel stated, “The petitioner’s urge to have a posting, in the concluding leg of his service, at a place of his choice, viz. Hyderabad, or in Mumbai, appears to us to be a continuation of his mindset to dictate terms while interacting with his senior officers”
