Krishna Kant Dubey vs Union Of India & Ors
2015 Latest Caselaw 7515 Del

$~38
*    IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+    W.P.(C).9403/2015
     %                           Order dated 1st October, 2015
       KRISHNA KANT DUBEY                                    ..... Petitioner
                    Through :           Mr. Mukesh Kumar, Advocate
                           versus
       UNION OF INDIA & ORS                                    ..... Respondents

Through : Mr. Kirtimanman Singh, CGSC with Ms. Prerna Shah Deo, Advocate for respondents no.1 to 3.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.S.SISTANI HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL G.S.SISTANI, J (ORAL)

CM APPL.21948/2015

1. Exemption allowed subject to all just exceptions.

2. Application stands disposed of.

W.P.(C).9403/2015

3. On passing of an order dated 02.09.2015 by which the petitioner was transferred to Agra, the petitioner approached the Central Administrative Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal'). The Tribunal while issuing notice, declined grant of interim relief which has led to the filing of the present writ petition.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the order of transfer is yet another attempt on the part of the respondent to harass the petitioner as he is a whistleblower. Besides, petitioner is also the President of the ADRDE Karamchari Union. Counsel further submits that the Tribunal adjourned the matter to 16.12.2015 and directed the petitioner to join his place of posting which would, in fact, make the petition of the petitioner infructuous.

5. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and find no infirmity in the order passed by the Tribunal. We may also notice that the Tribunal has listed the matter for hearing on 16.12.2015. Counsel for the petitioner has prayed that an early date may be fixed as the petitioner is suffering acute hardship. We accordingly request the Tribunal to take up the matter for hearing in the last week of November. The petitioner may make an appropriate application before the Tribunal in this regard.

6. The petitioner also complains that the transfer order was not received by him. The Tribunal will also look into this aspect of the matter as well. Meanwhile, without prejudice to the rights and contentions of both the parties, let another copy of transfer order be supplied to the petitioner.

7. The counsel for the petitioner, on instructions, submits that the petitioner would be joining the new place of posting.

8. The writ petition is disposed of in above terms.

G.S.SISTANI, J

SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL, J OCTOBER 01, 2015 pst