Shri Daulat Ram vs Union Of India & Ors.
2011 Latest Caselaw 1068 Del

*        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.

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