T.K.Rai vs Union Of India And Ors
2012 Latest Caselaw 4846 Del

$~15.
*   IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

%                                Date of Decision: 17th August, 2012.

+                      W.P.(C) 4979/2012

       T.K.RAI                                   ..... Petitioner
                            Represented by: Mr.Girijesh Pandey, Adv.


                       versus


       UNION OF INDIA AND ORS              ..... Respondents
                      Represented by: Mr.Sachin Datta, CGSC for
                                      R-1/UOI.

       CORAM:
       HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP NANDRAJOG
       HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN SINGH

PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J. (Oral)

C.M.No.10199/2012 Allowed.

W.P.(C) 4979/2012

1. The grievance of the petitioner is to the fact that vide impugned order dated August 08, 2012 he has been directed to collect the movement order and to proceed to the new place of posting.

2. The backdrop of the grievance as projected by the petitioner is that his wife was not conceiving; requiring IVF treatment. Taking a sympathetic view, vide order dated March 28, 2011, the petitioner was transferred from Dhanbad to the

Delhi region where IVF treatment could be availed of.

3. As per the petitioner he and his wife are availing IVF treatment at Pushpanjali Crosslay hospital.

4. What the petitioner has not disclosed to us is that he is currently with the 5th Reserved Battalion, Ghaziabad and his transfer is to CGBC, Delhi.

5. It is, thus, not a case where the petitioner is being harmed by the transfer order.

6. Therefore we do not find any wrong committed to the petitioner on his being transferred from Ghaziabad to Delhi.

7. While dismissing the writ petition, we take note of the fact that the petitioner requires a family accommodation where he and his wife can stay together and this would be an essential requirement for he and his wife availing IVF facility.

8. Accordingly, we direct that the quarter allotted to the petitioner at Ghaziabad, where he and his wife are residing, be not withdrawn till suitable family accommodation is made available to the petitioner at Delhi.

9. Our direction aforesaid would enure for a period of one year from today inasmuch as the petitioner and his wife have commenced availing IVF treatment at Pushpanjali Crosslay hospital on July 18, 2012 and this was for the reason that on being allotted a quarter on May 15, 2012, the petitioner was able to bring his wife from the village to the quarter in question where they could cohabit as husband and wife.

10. No costs.

11. Dasti.

C.M.No.10200/2012 Since the writ petition stands disposed of, the application is dismissed as infructuous.

(PRADEEP NANDRAJOG) JUDGE

(MANMOHAN SINGH) JUDGE AUGUST 17, 2012 'anb'