Delhi High Court
Hav Abhey Singh vs Uoi & Ors. on 25 January, 2012
Author: Anil Kumar
$~
20
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C)No.532/2012 and CM No.1133/2012
% Date of decision: 25th January, 2012
HAV ABHEY SINGH ..... Petitioner
Through : Mr. Santosh Kumar, Advocate.
versus
UOI & ORS. ..... Respondents
Through : Mr. Himanshu Bajaj, Advocate.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE J.R. MIDHA
ORDER
% 25.01.2012
ANIL KUMAR, J.
+W.P.(C)No.532/2012
*
Issue show cause notice to the respondents as to why
rule nisi be not issued. Mr. Himanshu Bajaj, Advocate accepts
notice and seeks two weeks time to file reply to show cause
notice. Reply to show cause notice be filed within two weeks.
Rejoinder, if any, be filed by three days before the next date of
hearing.
List on 29th February, 2012.
CM No.1133/2012
Learned counsel for the petitioner/applicant states that
the name of the applicant in the application has been shown as
Havaldar/CLK Siyaram on account of inadvertent typographical
error though the applicant is Havaldar Abhey Singh as the
affidavit in support of the application is filed in the name of
Hawaldar Abhay Singh.
Issue notice to the respondents. Mr. Himanshu Bajaj,
Advocate accepts notice and seeks two weeks time to file reply
to the application. Reply to the application be filed within two
weeks. Rejoinder, if any, be filed by three days before the next
date of hearing.
The plea of the petitioner is that his father is suffering
from metastatic Ca prostrate related to obstructive uropathy
with CKD 5 and has to undergo hemodialysis frequently. The
father of the petitioner is also suffering from cancer and is
undergoing treatment at Army Hospital (R&R).
The petitioner/applicant has contended that he had made
a representation that he should not be transferred to a place
where the medical facilities for treatment of cancer and
kidneys related problems for his father are not available.
According to him, the place of his transfer, Leh does not have
medical facilities for treatment of his father.
It has also been contended that the representation was
made by the petitioner to the respondents against his transfer
to Leh emphasizing the problems and he had sought that his
transfer be postponed at least for six months.
The representation has been disposed of by an order
dated 9th January, 2012 without adverting to any of the issues
raised by the petitioner and the representation has been
rejected mechanically without application of mind. It is also
stated that the transfer policy also contemplates consideration
of compassionate factors and circumstances which have not
been considered.
The applicant, therefore, contends that he has a good
prima facie case that he should not be transferred. It is also
contended that in the circumstances, inconvenience caused to
the petitioner shall be much more in case he is transferred to
Leh and, therefore, balance of convenience is in favour of the
petitioner. If the petitioner is transferred to Leh where no
medical facilities are available for the treatment of his father
who is suffering from cancer and there is no other family
member to look after his father, he may suffer irreparable loss.
It is also contended that on account of lack of medical facilities,
if his father's condition deteriorates, the petitioner shall suffer
immense loss and injury. Considering the facts and
circumstances of this case, the petitioner has been able to
make out a good prima facie case for grant of interim relief.
Consequently the transfer of the petitioner to 13, Kumaon
at Leh (Jammu and Kashmir) is stayed till the next date of
hearing and the parties are directed to maintain status quo in
respect of the posting of the petitioner till the next date of
hearing.
List on 29th February, 2012.
Dasti.
ANIL KUMAR, J.
J.R. MIDHA, J
JANUARY 25, 2012
mk
