Hc Sukhbir Singh vs Uoi And Ors
2010 Latest Caselaw 3236 Del

13
*IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+     W.P.(C)No.4418/2010 and CM No.8781/2010

                                  Date of Decision : 13th July, 2010
%

      HC SUKHBIR SINGH                   ..... Petitioner
                    Through : Mr. Anuj Aggarwal,
                              Mr. Manika V. Aggarwal and
                              Mr. Gaurav Khanna, Advs.
               versus

      UOI AND ORS                          ..... Respondents
                       Through : Dr. Ashwani Bhardwaj, Adv.

CORAM :-
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE GITA MITTAL
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE J.R. MIDHA

1.      Whether Reporters of Local papers may               NO
        be allowed to see the Judgment?

2.      To be referred to the Reporter or not?              NO

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

GITA MITTAL, J. (Oral)

1. By this writ petition, the petitioner assails the movement

order dated 1st July, 2010 whereby he has been required to

move from 103 Battalion of the Rapid Action Force presently at

Delhi to his parent Battalion which is 127 Battalion Central

Reserve Police Force and is currently located at Orissa. The

writ petition is premised on the contention that the petitioner

had submitted an application for voluntary retirement from his

service dated 14th June, 2000 which has not been considered

by the respondents. The contention is that, pending orders on

his request for voluntary retirement, the movement shall work

undue hardships to the petitioner. According to the writ

petitioner, the resultant displacement of the petitioner's family

would be unwarranted and consequently he has prayed for

quashing of the order of movement in exercise of our

extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution

of India.

2. When the writ petition had come up before us on 7th July,

2010, on a prima facie consideration of the aforenoted

submissions, we had directed that the movement order dated

1st July, 2010 to be kept in abeyance. The petitioner has,

therefore, continued to remain at Delhi.

3. When the matter was taken up today, Dr. Ashwani

Bhardwaj, learned counsel appearing for the respondents had

made a submission that no application seeking voluntary

retirement from service has been received from the petitioner.

It is also pointed out that the petitioner was deployed at the

Rapid Action Force for a fixed tenure of three years which has

expired and his continuation at the said deployment is not

possible or permissible. Learned counsel also pointed out that

the petitioner has in these circumstances been directed to

report back to his parent battalion wherefrom he was deployed

at Delhi on a tenure basis.

4. We have considered the rival contentions. We find that

the letter dated 14th June, 2000 written by the petitioner

seeking voluntary retirement from service was addressed to

the Commandant of the 103 Battalion of the Rapid Action Force

and not to the petitioner's appointing authority. The prayer in

this representation is also for verification of the petitioner's

service so as to enable him to apply for voluntary retirement.

No representation for permission to voluntarily retire addressed

to the petitioner's appointing authority/competent authority

has been placed before this Court. There is therefore force in

the submission by learned counsel for the respondents that the

petitioner has not made an application in the prescribed format

to the competent authority.

5. Be that as it may, the petitioner was deployed with the

Rapid Action Force on a fixed tenure basis. The petitioner has

complained that his movement to join his parent Battalion

would cause displacement for his family. Undoubtedly even, if

the petitioner was permitted to proceed on voluntary

retirement, he would be required to make alternate

arrangement for placement of his family. Nothing prevents the

petitioner from making such arrangement pending

consideration of any request for voluntary retirement which he

may make to the respondent. However, the movement/transfer

order cannot be interdicted or assailed for this reason in the

given facts. We, therefore, find no merits in the plea raised by

the petitioner.

6. In view of the above, this writ petition and application are

dismissed.

7. We however give liberty to the petitioner to submit an

application as per the applicable rules and regulations to the

Competent Authority. Needless to say, as and when such

application is made, the respondents shall consider the same

expeditiously and communicate the order thereof to the

petitioner.

8. Dasti.

GITA MITTAL, J

J.R. MIDHA, J JULY 13, 2010 mk