Delhi High Court
Union Of India & Ors vs Vinod Aggarwal on 13 March, 2013
Author: Pradeep Nandrajog
10
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of decision: March 13, 2013.
+ W.P.(C) 1470/2012
UNION OF INDIA & ORS ..... Petitioners
Represented by: Mr.Rajesh Katyal, Advocate.
versus
VINOD AGGARWAL ..... Respondent
Represented by: Mr.M.K.Bhardwaj, Advocate
with Ms.Minal Sehgal, Advocate.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP NANDRAJOG
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE PRATIBHA RANI
PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J (ORAL)
1. The respondent, after serving for 19 years reached the stage of
exercising a choice for a posting which he did, resulting in respondent being
posted at Delhi for the first time on August 06, 2008; by said date the
respondent who had joined as a DFO(M) with the Sasashtra Seema Bal
(SSB) on June 22, 1989 had served the organization and the country well for
19 years.
2. His grievance was of being transferred out of Delhi as per order dated
April 16, 2010. This was within less than two years of he having worked at
Delhi. Respondent placed reliance upon the transfer policy which envisages
tenure of 5 years at a place of posting.
3. The respondent pointed out instances of people who had served for
tenure longer than him at Delhi, and in particular pointed out the case of one
Dilbagh Singh who had served for 4 years. Since the transfer order was
being defended by SSB on the application of principle of: 'exigencies of
service', the petitioner would urge before the authorities that if 'exigencies
of service' had to be applied as a principle to over-reach the transfer policy
then the principle: 'first come to go first' should have been applied i.e. if the
tenure at choice of posting had to be curtailed then why not the person who
had availed the maximum benefit of the choice.
4. Respondent's arguments have found favour with the Tribunal.
5. Suffice would it be for us to state that on issues of transfer policy and
especially when department relied on 'exigencies of service', it would be
difficult for a Court or a Tribunal to start comparing the tenure of
individuals.
6. For example, there may be exigency of work in a hill station where a
young man may be expected to work better than a middle aged or an old
person. Can an argument then be premised that since middle aged or an old
person has worked in Delhi longer than the young man who was sought to
be transferred, the principle of 'first come to go first' should be applied. The
answer would be 'No'. The reason is obvious. The hill station, the altitude,
the arduous duties to be performed, would require a fit young man to be
posted.
7. Thus, declaring that the legal approach of the Tribunal is incorrect, we
relieve the writ petitioner from the rigors declared by law as per impugned
order dated April 19, 2011 but we do not set aside the order for the reason
we find that the respondent had the benefit of an interim stay against his
transfer till the Original Application got decided.
8. In the instant writ petition, though prayed for, no ad-interim stay of
the direction issued by the Tribunal was passed. As a result, the respondent
has continued to serve in Delhi till today. As per the transfer- posting policy
relied upon by the respondent, the maximum right he would have to serve in
Delhi would be August 6, 2013. As we are at the end of March, 2013 the
date August 6, 2013 is merely 4 months away. The respondent has two
children; one in class 12 and other is in college, the children have to take
their Board and College examinations.
9. Declaring the legal position as above, we maintain the findings of the
Tribunal as per impugned order dated April 19, 2011.
10. The writ petition stands disposed of but without there being any order
as to costs.
CM No.3221/2012
Dismissed as infructuous.
(PRADEEP NANDRAJOG)
JUDGE
(PRATIBHA RANI)
JUDGE
MARCH 13, 2013
skb
