Delhi High Court
Ct/Gd Mtrasen vs Union Of India & Anr. on 7 February, 2012
Author: Sudershan Kumar Misra
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO.781/2012
CT/GD Mtrasen .... Petitioner
Through Mr. Kedar Nath Tripathy, Advocate.
versus
Union of India & Anr. ..... Respondents
Through Mr. Sumeet Pushkarna, Advocate
With Mr. Atul Shahi, Deputy JAG.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDERSHAN KUMAR MISRA
ORDER
07.02.2012
+ W.P.(C) No.781/2012
Issue show cause notice to the respondents as to why Rule nisi be
not issued. Mr. Sumeet Pushkarna, Advocate, accepts notice on behalf of
the respondents and seeks time to file the reply. Reply to the show cause
notice be filed within three weeks. Rejoinder, if any, be filed by three
days before the next date of hearing.
List on 26th March, 2012.
CM Appl.No.1733/2012
Issue notice to the respondents. Mr. Sumeet Pushkarna, Advocate,
accepts notice on behalf of the respondents and seeks time to file the
reply. Reply to the application be filed within three weeks. Rejoinder, if
any, be filed by three days before the next date of hearing.
The plea of the petitioner is that he is suffering from Lumber
Spondylosis and he has extremely bad health and is not in a completely
fit condition. According to the petitioner, he was given radiation
treatment last year and the Doctors have advised him to take complete
rest and undergo regular medical check-ups. The petitioner has produced
the medical record stipulating that he is unfit for hilly terrain and he has
been advised light duties.
Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that earlier also, he
had been transferred to Leh by order dated 29.5.2010, which was
challenged by him by filing a writ petition being W.P.(C) No.4599/2010
titled Mitrasen v. Union of India & Ors., which was disposed of by order
dated 15.12.2010 and the movement order of the petitioner transferring
him to Leh was also stayed during the pendency of the consideration of
his representation based on his medical condition. Thereafter, petitioner
was not transferred to Leh.
The petitioner/applicant has further contended that now he has
again been transferred to 4th Battalion Arunachal Pradesh, which is an
extremely hilly area though his medical condition has not improved.
Upon coming to know about the transfer order, the petitioner had
made a representation dated 14.01.2012 seeking cancellation of the
transfer order which has not been even considered. According to the
petitioner, he went to Jhansi Government Hospital for treatment on
27.01.2012 where he was advised to have an MRI done. He, therefore,
informed the respondents and requested them for an advance of
Rs.5,000/- for getting the MRI. Instead of providing the money for
having his MRI, the movement order dated 27.01.2012 was issued to the
petitioner directing him to first join at the place of transfer and that the
Department may consider his request thereafter.
Considering the facts and circumstances, the petitioner has been
able to make out a prima facie case against his transfer to Arunachal
Pradesh. Taking into consideration his medical condition and the
medical advise rendered to him, the balance of convenience is also in
favour of the petitioner as the inconvenience caused to the petitioner
shall be much more in case he is transferred to Arunachal Pradesh
despite the medical condition of the petitioner. In case the petitioner is
transferred to Arunachal Pradesh in the facts and circumstances, the
petitioner may also suffer irreparable damage.
Therefore, in the facts and circumstances, the movement order
dated 27.01.2012, transferring the petitioner to Arunachal Pradesh and
the transfer of the petitioner from Karera, District Shivpuri, Madhya
Pradesh to 4th Battalian Arunachal Pradesh is stayed till the next date of
hearing.
A copy of this order be given Dasti to counsel for the parties.
List on 26th March, 2012.
ANIL KUMAR, J.
SUDERSHAN KUMAR MISRA, J.
February 07, 2012
rd
