Delhi High Court
Vikramjeet Singh Sambyal vs Uoi & Ors. on 17 February, 2011
Author: Pradeep Nandrajog
$~
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of Decision: February 17, 2011
+ W.P.(C) 694/2011
VIKRAMJEET SINGH SAMBYAL ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr.S.S.Pandey, Advocate.
versus
UOI & ORS. ..... Respondents
Through: Mr.Atul Nanda, Senior Advocate with
Mr.Mohit Jolly, Advocate for UOI.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP NANDRAJOG
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESH KAIT
1. Whether the Reporters of local papers may be allowed
to see the judgment?
2. To be referred to Reporter or not?
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?
PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J.(Oral)
1. Petitioner is a Major in the Indian Army and is
attached to the Army Service Corps. He desired to proceed on
deputation under the National Security Guard (NSG) and after
interaction with NSG, the Army Authorities relieved the
petitioner to join NSG.
2. It is not in dispute that the first posting of the
petitioner in NSG was as a Squadron Commander but he was
subsequently deputed to work as a Team Commander. This
W.P.(C) No.694/2011 Page 1 of 4
petitioner claims was downgrading.
3. The response of NSG, as pleaded in paras 4 to 8 of
the counter affidavit filed may be reproduced. The same reads
as under:-
"4. The deponent submits that the petitioner‟s
averments regarding his „Downgradation‟ from
Squadron Commander to Team Commander is
factually incorrect. Downgradation is when an
individual, who has been absorbed by NSG is stepped
down from his present rank to a lower rank, whereas
in the present case, the petitioner was not absorbed in
this organization and was still on probation. Further,
during probation the officer is on the strength of his
previous unit i.e. his salaries and allowances are to be
borne by his previous unit and not NSG. Reference in
this regard may be made to the Posting Order dated
11.03.2010. Thus, in effect the petitioner was on
„Temporary Duty‟ with this organization.
5. However, in the case of the predecessor,
Maj.D.K.Gupta joined NSG on 11 Jun 07 as Squadron
Commander and Maj.B.K.Dhoundiyal joined NSG on 11
Aug 08 as Team Commander, therefore Maj.D.K.Gupta
was already absorbed by the NSG when
Maj.B.K.Dhoundiyal was appointed as Team
Commander and thus, Maj.Gupta could not have been
downgraded. However, since the petitioner was on
probation, he could have been side-stepped and a
senior available officer could have been stepped up as
the Sqn.Cdr. in organizational interest. The aforesaid
was conveyed to petitioner vide letter dated
26.11.2010.
6. It is further, submitted that the NSG posts of
Squadron Commander and Team Commander can be
tenated by Army Officers of the Rank of Maj and in the
event of two Maj Rank Officers being posted to same
unit the senior officer (as per date of seniority) is
W.P.(C) No.694/2011 Page 2 of 4
absorbed as Squadron Commander and the other as
Team Commander. It is not downgrading in any
manner.
7. It is submitted that sidestepping of Army Officers
within NSG units is a matter of routine wherein the
supreme consideration is the organizational interest
followed by the individual consideration of inter se
seniority which has directed bearing on Morale and
Motivation. Thus, petitioner‟s averments regarding
illegality of his sidestepping is again incorrect since
DG, NSG is competent to sidestep Army Offrs within
NSG as per the policy dated 08.07.1992. A copy of the
aforesaid policy No.28280/NSG/POLICY/MS-3B dated
08.07.1992 is annexed hereto and marked as
Annexure R-4/2.
8. It is further relevant to note that petitioner had
submitted an „Undertaking‟ dated 15 Sep 2010 duly
countersigned by his controlling officer wherein the
Petitioner has accepted that:
"During my tenure with NSG I may be posted to
any unit/sidestepped to another appt/unit/HQ in
org interest. I hereby undertake that I shall not
represent for any reason against such
sidestepping/posting move ordered by the
competent authority in NSG"
This undertaking is given by all deputationists at NSG
after successful absorption."
4. We are of the opinion that there is no need for us to
decide on the merits of the action taken by NSG for the reason
the petitioner is estopped from questioning his repatriation from
NSG to the Army Service Corps and being told by the Parent
Department to report for duty in Meerut.
5. Our reason for so holding is that on 27.10.2010, the
W.P.(C) No.694/2011 Page 3 of 4
petitioner himself wrote to the Director General NSG that if he
cannot be adjusted as per his wishes in the NSG, the case may
be taken up to repatriate him to his Parent Organization.
Pursuant thereto, the petitioner was repatriated and was
relieved from NSG.
6. On 11.1.2011, the petitioner addressed a
communication to Major General Shakti Gurung in the MS
Branch of the Ministry of Defence in which, vide para 2(h), he
requested that he should be posted in any unit of the Army
Service Corps in Delhi.
7. It is apparent that the petitioner acquiesced in being
relieved by NSG. The petitioner reported back to the parent
department i.e. the Army Service Corps.
8. It appears that the real reason for the petitioner to
have filed the writ petition is his being directed to join the Army
Service Corps at Meerut. The petitioner desires to continue to
stay on in Delhi.
9. Thus, the prayer made to quash the movement order
dated 28.1.2011 as also the posting order requiring the
petitioner to join at Meerut cannot be quashed.
10. The writ petition is dismissed.
11. No costs.
PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J.
FEBRUARY 17, 2011 SURESH KAIT, J.
dk
