* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ Writ Petition (Civil) No. 1154/2011
Shri Daulat Ram ....Petitioner
Through IN PERSON.
VERSUS
Union of India & Ors. .....Respondents
Through
CORAM:
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA
ORDER
% 22.02.2011 CM 2457/2011 (for exemption) Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.
WP(C) NO. 1154/2011 & CM No. 2456/2011 We have heard the petitioner in person who has been transferred from New Delhi to Lucknow. It is not disputed that his service is transferrable and is a condition of service.
2. The petitioner, however, submits that the order is stigmatic as there were complaints. Central Administrative Tribunal (Tribunal, for short) has examined the said aspect and has noticed that the order transferring the petitioner from New Delhi to Lucknow Bench as Daftari is not stigmatic per se.
WPC 1154/2011 Page 1 of 2
3. The case of the respondent is clear that the transfer has not been passed as a fall out of any complaint and is not punitive. The Tribunal has also referred to the letter written by the petitioner against the transfer order. It has been quoted in paragraph 6 of the order of the Tribunal. In the said letter, the petitioner had requested for cancellation of transfer for personal reasons like old age of parents and their illness, etc. No allegations were made in the said representation about any complaint or the transfer order being punitive. Accordingly the Tribunal has observed that the allegation that the order of transfer amounts to punishment or is punitive, is an after thought.
4. Learned Tribunal has also referred to the decisions on the subject of transfer and the limited and narrow scope when an order of transfer is interfered with. We do not have any reason to take a different view when we exercise discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed in limine.
SANJIV KHANNA, J.
CHIEF JUSTICE February 22, 2011/kkb WPC 1154/2011 Page 2 of 2