Asi Bhanu Pratap vs Union Of India And Ors.
2008 Latest Caselaw 1874 Del

*         IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+        WP (C) No.6749/2008

%                                           Date of decision: 22.10.2008


       ASI BHANU PRATAP.                           ...Petitioner
                     Through:          Mr. U. Srivastava, Advocate


                                  Versus


       UNION OF INDIA & Ors.                   .......Respondents
                      Through:         Mr. R.K. Dhawan, Mr. Rahul Gaur,
                                       Advocates.

       CORAM:
       HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KISHAN KAUL
       HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOOL CHAND GARG

1.     Whether the Reporters of local papers may be allowed to
       see the judgment?                                       No

2.     To be referred to Reporter or not?                        No

3.     Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? No

SANJAY KISHAN KAUL, J (Oral)
*

1. The petitioner was appointed to the Railway Protection Force (Western Railway) as a Constable on 16.08.1987 and was promoted as a Head Constable in 1996 and thereafter as an ASI on 21.10.2005. The petitioner applied for transfer from Western Railway to Northern Railway allegedly on account of the personal difficulties and the petitioner was transferred on 17.08.2007. The grievance of the petitioner is that while fixing seniority of ASI/RPF the petitioner has been assigned the seniority as HC/RPF.

2. We have had the occasion to consider the controversy in the

reverse perspective in W.P.(C) 4476/2007 titled as B.L. Bishnoi &

Ors. Vs. Union of India & Ors. decided today. We have concluded

that inter-zone transfers are not permissible in case of a promoted

post as per the standing order No. 70 dated 27.09.2004. It is not in

dispute that the post on which the petitioner was working being of

ASI Constable was a promotional post for the petitioner and thus,

inter-zone transfer was not permissible unless the petitioner is

placed at the bottom of the list as HC/RPF.

3. The respondents apparently woke up to the problem after the

controversy in B.L. Bishnoi's case (Supra) had arisen and that is the

reason the petitioner was sought to be assigned a lower seniority as

Head Constable in the zone to which the petitioner has been

transferred. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that if the

petitioner would have known his fate of a lower seniority possibly he

would not have exercised the option to seek transfer.

4. In view of the judgment in B.L. Bishnoi's Case (Supra), we

consider it appropriate to give the petitioner the option to go back to

his zone within a period of three months from today. During this

period of three months status qua would be maintained in terms of

order dated 29.09.2008. In case the petitioner chooses to stay in

the Northern Zone, then he would have to take his seniority as Head

Constable but in case he decides to go back to his original zone

being the Western Railway, the petitioner would work in the post of

ASI as per promotion granted to him earlier.

5. The writ petition is disposed of in the aforesaid terms.

6. Dasti.

SANJAY KISHAN KAUL,J

MOOL CHAND GARG,J OCTOBER 22, 2008/anb