Delhi High Court
Rajpal Yadav vs Union Of India & Ors on 30 July, 2015
Author: G. S. Sistani
$~33
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 6785/2015
% Judgment dated 30th July, 2015
RAJPAL YADAV ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Vikram Saini, Advocate.
versus
UNION OF INDIA & ORS ..... Respondent
Through: Mr. Ruchir Mishra, Advocate and Mr.
Mukesh Kumar Tiwari, Adv for respondents 1, 2 & 5.
Mr.Naresh Kaushik with Ms. Twinkle, Advocate for
respondent No.4.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G. S. SISTANI
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL
G.S.SISTANI, J (ORAL)
1. By the present writ petition, the petitioner seeks quashing of the order
dated 29th June, 2015, passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal.
2. The grievance of the petitioner in the OA was that the petitioner was
working as an Inspector with respondent No.5 Indo-Tibetan Border Police
(ITBP). He joined the Intelligence Bureau (IB), as ACIO-I/Exe. on 17th
December, 2008, on deputation and continued to work there till 25 th
February, 2010, when he was asked to indicate his willingness to be
permanently absorbed in the IB. The petitioner accordingly submitted his
willingness vide his letter dated 25th February, 2010. His case for
W.P.(C) No. 6785/2015 Page 1 of 3
permanent absorption was duly recommended by the sponsoring authority,
i.e. his parent department (ITBP) and a 'No Objection Certificate' (NOC)
was also obtained vide its letter dated 23 rd September, 2011 from the
parent organization. The petitioner was also called by IB for interview on
9th May, 2012, where the petitioner claims that he fairly agreed to work
with them and he was assured that he would be permanently absorbed,
subject to completion of formalities. However, while the petitioner
hopefully continued to wait for his permanent absorption, a letter was
issued by IB vide memo dated 20th November, 2012 repatriating the
petitioner and relieving him from his duty, on account of completion of his
extended deputation tenure of four years, to report to duty to his parent
department i.e. ITBP.
3. After a detailed hearing in the matter, the petitioner who is present in court
states that he does not want to press this writ petition. He undertakes to
visit the office (IB, MHA, Government of India) tomorrow i.e. 31 st July,
2015, at 11.00 A.M. to complete all the formalities, so that he can be
relieved. He further states that he will join his parent Department i.e. ITBP
by 5th August, 2015. Petitioner also states that in addition to the grounds
raised, one of the reasons for not joining his parent department was the
illness of his wife. He also submits that he will make a representation to
ITBP his parent Department with regard to his regularisation of his leave
and prays that respondent Nos. 1 and 2 be directed to consider the same
sympathetically.
4. Mr. Ruchir Mishra, counsel for respondent Nos 1, 2 and 5 submits that in
case a representation is made by the petitioner, the same will be considered
sympathetically.
W.P.(C) No. 6785/2015 Page 2 of 3
5. In view of the stand taken, leave is granted to the petitioner to withdraw
the present writ petition. The present writ petition is accordingly
dismissed as withdrawn. In case any representation is made, the
respondents 1 and 2 will consider the same sympathetically.
6. Copy of the order be given dasti under the signatures of Court Master.
G. S. SISTANI, J.
SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL, J
JULY 30, 2015 / n
