Delhi High Court
Shantanu Basu vs Union Of India & Ors. on 6 November, 2012
Author: Badar Durrez Ahmed
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Judgment delivered on: 06.11.2012
W.P.(C) 6975/2012
SHANTANU BASU ..... Petitioner
versus
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. ..... Respondents
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Petitioner : Mr A.K.Thakur and Mr R.K.Mishra.
For the Respondents : Mr Rahul Kumar for Mr Gaurang Kanth for CAG.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BADAR DURREZ AHMED
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SIDDHARTH MRIDUL
JUDGMENT
BADAR DURREZ AHMED, J (ORAL)
CM 18105/2012
The exemption is allowed subject to just exceptions.
This application stands disposed of.
WP(C) 6975/2012
1. This writ petition is directed against the order dated 05.09.2012 passed
by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi in OA
No.1682/2012 whereby the petitioner's said OA against the transfer order
transferring him from Delhi to Guwahati has been disposed of in the
following matter:-
"4. In view of aforementioned facts and circumstances,
while it is held that there is no legal infirmity in the
impugned order of transfer dated 4.05.2012 warranting
interference by this Court and the prayer made in the
Original Application is declined, liberty is granted to
applicant to make a representation to CAG for his posting
back to Delhi or to any other place convenient to him
within 15 days. In the event of preference of such
representation by applicant, CAG may consider and decide
the same, keeping in view the inconvenience caused to
administration and the applicant in his participation of the
disciplinary proceeding pending against him and the fact
that admittedly with effect from 6.10.2010, the family
circumstances of the applicant, i.e. ailment of his father and
son consider warranting his posting to Delhi have not
changed." (underlining added)
2. The learned counsel appearing for the CAG points out that after the
passing of the said order, the petitioner had made a representation and the
same has been considered by the CAG and has been rejected by an order
dated 01.11.2012. A copy of the same has been handed over to the learned
counsel for the petitioner.
3. On going through the said order, the learned counsel for the petitioner
submits that the order is not in conformity with the direction given by the
Tribunal. First of all, there is no consideration with regard to the
inconvenience that may be caused to the administration as also to the
petitioner in his participation in the disciplinary proceedings which is
pending against him in Delhi. Secondly, the Tribunal was concerned with
regard to the family circumstances (ailment of the petitioner's father and
son), which have not changed at all since 06.10.2010, which was the reason
for the petitioner seeking transfer from Gorakhpur to Delhi, which was
allowed by the respondent. This aspect has also not been considered by the
CAG despite the clear and specific direction of the Tribunal.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner also points out that he had
submitted the representation without prejudice to his rights and contentions
insofar as the other findings of the Tribunal in the impugned order are
concerned.
5. We feel that in view of the fact that there has been a subsequent
development which is not under challenge before us, it would be appropriate
that the petitioner be given liberty to challenge the same before the Tribunal.
In these circumstances, we permit the petitioner to withdraw this petition
with liberty to challenge the order dated 01.11.2012 before the Tribunal. In
case the petitioner is still aggrieved, we grant him liberty to file a writ
petition before this court even against the present impugned order. With
these observations and directions the writ petition stands disposed of.
BADAR DURREZ AHMED, J
SIDDHARTH MRIDUL, J
NOVEMBER 06, 2012
mk
