Delhi High Court
Satbir Singh vs Union Of India & Ors on 16 May, 2014
Author: Gita Mittal
$~15 to 17
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of decision: 16th May, 2014
+ W.P.(C) 1798/2014 & CM No.3768/2014
SATBIR SINGH ..... Petitioner
Through : Mr. R.N. Singh and
Mr. A.S. Singh, Advs.
versus
UNION OF INDIA & ORS ..... Respondents
Through : Mr. Jatan Singh, CGSC with
Mr. Saqib Qureshi, Advs.
+ W.P.(C) 1799/2014 & CM No.3769/2014
RAVINDER KUMAR ..... Petitioner
Through : Mr. R.N. Singh and
Mr. A.S. Singh, Advs.
versus
UNION OF INDIA & ORS ..... Respondents
Through : Mr. Jatan Singh, CGSC with
Mr. Saqib Qureshi, Advs.
+ W.P.(C) 1919/2014 & CM No.4006/2014
S.N. LABH ..... Petitioner
Through : Mr. R.N. Singh and
Mr. A.S. Singh, Advs.
versus
UNION OF INDIA & ORS ..... Respondents
Through : Mr. Jatan Singh, CGSC with
Mr. Saqib Qureshi, Advs.
W.P.(C)Nos.1798/2014, 1799/2014 & 1919/2014 page 1 of 6
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE GITA MITTAL
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE DEEPA SHARMA
GITA MITTAL, J. (Oral)
1. Pursuant to the order dated 4th April, 2014, the respondents
have filed an affidavit enclosing correspondence with regard to the
matter of postings/transfer of CPWD officers in the Parliament
House Complex as well as the Prime Minister House and Office.
2. Our attention is drawn to letter No.28/8/2005-EC-I/EW-1
dated 21st November, 2005 sent by Shri Mehar Singh, Under
Secretary to the Government of India to the Director General
(Works). As per this letter, the DG (Works) of the CPWD has
been informed that "all postings/transfers of CPWD officers up to
the level of Superintending Engineer to Parliament House Complex
are effected with the prior concurrence of Lok Sabha Secretariat".
3. The respondents have also placed before us the office
memorandum dated 18th July, 2012 issued by the Deputy Secretary
(Works) of the Government of India, Ministry of Urban
Development and Poverty Alleviation on the issue of postings and
transfers of officers of the CPWD assigned with the responsibility
of maintaining PM House and PM Office.
4. A direction was issued that the "PMO may be consulted in
advance before making the postings/transfer of the officers of the
rank of Executive Engineer and above who are assigned the
responsibility of looking after the work of PM House or PM
Office".
W.P.(C)Nos.1798/2014, 1799/2014 & 1919/2014 page 2 of 6
5. A bare reading of the above communication relied upon by
the respondents would show that there is no prohibition at all in
effecting transfers of officers posted in Department of Horticulture
of the CPWD. The prior consultation relates to Executive
Engineer/Superintending Engineer of the CPWD. We are informed
that there is no post of Executive Engineer or Superintending
Engineer in the Department of Horticulture. This letter does not
relate to postings in the Department of Horticulture.
6. The tenure extensions of Executive Engineers and
Superintending Engineers of the CPWD appear to have basis. It
would appear to have basis for the reason that there may be on
going civil or electrical work or building projects which may be
involving special sensitivity keeping in view the specific
building/concerned office concerned. Extensions on such grounds
are recognized under the rules.
7. Mr. Jatan Singh, learned Standing counsel and Mr. Saqib,
learned counsel appearing for the respondents have also drawn our
attention to a communication dated 24th - 25th April, 2013 written
by Shri VK. Gupta, Director General of the CPWD informing the
Secretary General of the Lok Sabha Secretariat with regard to
officers in the Department of Horticulture who have been posted in
Delhi since as back as in the year 2000 whereas normal tenure of
posting in Delhi is only five years. The DG, CPWD has also stated
that no relieving of such officers is causing problem in effecting
transfer/posting of other officers and that grant of unilateral
extension to one particular officer creates indiscipline amongst its
W.P.(C)Nos.1798/2014, 1799/2014 & 1919/2014 page 3 of 6
officers.
8. By another letter dated 1st of July, 2013, a panel of officers
was placed by the DG, CPWD before the Secretary General, Lok
Sabha Secretariat for appointment as Assistant Director,
Horticulture. This suggestion of the DG CPWD has not even been
considered.
9. We are informed by Mr. Jatan Singh, learned Standing
Counsel for the respondents that the communication dated 28th
June, 2013 has been responded by Shri Rajeev Topno, Director by
a communication dated 18th July, 2013 wherein it is stated in view
of the office exigencies, it has been decided to retain the services of
two officers of the Horticulture Department at the PM Office/
House for the time being.
10. The transfer policy requires to be strictly implemented so far
as this department is concerned. So far as Department of
Horticulture is concerned, the respondents cannot deviate from the
applicable rules. Nothing is placed before us which shows the
permissibility of such extensions. Even otherwise the notion of
"exigency of service" without anything more is vague and
extremely flimsy. The anxieties of the Director General of the
CPWD who has repeatedly endorsed the resultant indiscipline in
the Department because of the extensions deserves to be given due
attention. This aspect of the matter appears to have been lost sight
in the correspondence which has ensued as well as the extensions
to the officers of the Horticulture Department. Some officials have
been posted in Delhi since the year 2000.
W.P.(C)Nos.1798/2014, 1799/2014 & 1919/2014 page 4 of 6
11. There is no prohibition on the CPWD transferring the staff
of the Department of Horticulture as per their transfer policy. The
respondents have filed applications being CM No.6257/2014 in
W.P.(C) 1798/2014; CM No.6259/2014 in W.P.(C) 1799/2014 &
CM No.6258/2014 in W.P.(C) 1919/2014 seeking vacation of the
order dated 4th April, 2014 whereby we had kept the transfers of
the petitioners in abeyance. It has been contended that respondents
stand relieved in view of their transfer.
12. This position is disputed on behalf of the petitioner by
learned counsel who contends that relieving order has been issued
by the respondents unilaterally without their being any handing
over or taking over of charge by the petitioner.
13. It is also submitted that there were interim orders in favour
of the petitioners in the Central Administrative Tribunal and
petitioner continue to be posted at Delhi by virtue of the order
dated 4th April, 2014 passed by this court.
14. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, we direct as
follows:-
(i) The petitioners shall effect the handing over of the charge to
their successor within a period on or before 30th May, 2014.
(ii) The petitioners are permitted to join the place of positing on
or before the 16th June, 2014.
(iii) The petitioner shall be treated as having been posted at Delhi
till the date of joining at the place of posting or 16th June,
2014, whichever is earlier and shall be entitled to all benefits
of service including their emoluments
W.P.(C)Nos.1798/2014, 1799/2014 & 1919/2014 page 5 of 6
(iv) The respondents shall ensure that transfer policy issued by
CPWD is fairly enforced by all the authorities.
This writ petition and all pending applications are disposed
of in the above terms.
Dasti.
(GITA MITTAL)
JUDGE
(DEEPA SHARMA)
JUDGE
MAY 16, 2014
mk
W.P.(C)Nos.1798/2014, 1799/2014 & 1919/2014 page 6 of 6
