Delhi High Court
Amresh Kumar Yadav vs Uoi And Ors on 11 November, 2010
Author: Gita Mittal
18
*IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C)No.7577/2010
Date of Decision : 11th November, 2010
%
AMRESH KUMAR YADAV ..... Petitioner
Through : Mr. Subhasish Mohanty, Adv.
versus
UOI AND ORS ..... Respondents
Through : Mr. Khalid Arshad, Adv. for
Mr. Neeraj Choudhary, CGSC.
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 way of this writ petition, the petitioner prays for
quashing of the order No.AFA/7001/3/P3 dated 14th October,
2010 directing the petitioner to proceed on posting.
2. The petitioner has premised his challenge to the posting
on the ground that he has made a complaint to the respondent
in respect of an alleged incident dated 25th April, 2009 which is
pending consideration and that for this reason till consideration
of his complaint, the petitioner ought not be posted out.
3. It is an admitted position that the petitioner was posted
with the Air Force Academy at Hyderabad with effect from the
29th of November, 2004. He was posted out of the Academy
pursuant to a signal bearing No.RDA/369 dated 17th July, 2009
to the Base Repair Depot of the Air Force w.e.f. 12th October,
2009 on completion of his regular tenure at Hyderabad.
4. No challenge to the transfer which was directed by the
signal No.RDA/369 dated 17th July, 2009 has been made before
us.
5. The petitioner was involved in an alleged incident dated
25th April, 2009 wherein a complaint has been made against
him. He has also lodged a complaint against the officers
alleging ill-treatment and abuse. We are informed that the
respondents have completed the court of inquiry and have also
recorded summary of evidence into the alleged incident.
Needless to say that the respondents are expected to proceed
in the matter of the complaints in accordance with law. It is
further explained that it is the posting of the petitioner which
was effected as back as on 17th July, 2009 has only been
implemented by the impugned order dated 14th October, 2010.
6. It is trite that transfer is an incident of service, especially
in the defence forces. The petitioner has completed almost six
years at the Air Force Academy. As noted above, the posting
was ordered as back as on 17th July, 2009. Certainly the
continuation of the petitioner at the given stage is
unwarranted.
7. We are also not persuaded by the petitioner's contention
to the effect that his complaint with regard to the incident
dated 25th April, 2009 is pending. The petitioner himself has
stated that investigation has been conducted by the police on a
complaint which has been lodged by the petitioner. The
investigation by the police has been completed and the case
stands closed.
8. For all these reasons, we find no merit in the writ petition
and application which are hereby dismissed.
9. At this stage learned counsel for the petitioner prays that
the petitioner may be given two weeks to comply with the
directions made in the order dated 14th October, 2010 to
proceed for the posting within such period. This request is
granted. The petitioner is permitted to join at the place of
posting in terms of the order dated 14th October, 2010 within
15 days from today.
Dasti to parties.
GITA MITTAL, J
J.R. MIDHA, J
NOVEMBER 11, 2010
HL
