Delhi High Court
Tarkesh Prasad vs Border Security Force & Anr. on 18 April, 2016
$~6
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 2959/2016 & CM No.12371/2016
TARKESH PRASAD ..... Petitioner.
Through : Ms. Jasvinder Kaur, Advocate
versus
BORDER SECURITY FORCE & ANR. .... Respondents
Through : Mr. Manish Mohan, CGSC with
Ms. Manisha Saroha, Advocate.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE HIMA KOHLI
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU
ORDER
% 18.04.2016
1. The petitioner is aggrieved by the Signal dated 16.3.2016 issued by
the respondent/BSF attaching him with 95th Battalion, Haryana with
immediate effect to provide medicare to the health care beneficiaries
situated at Bhondsi.
2. On the last date of hearing, counsel for the petitioner had submitted
that the petitioner is presently discharging his duties at the FHQ BSF
Hospital-II, Tigri where he had been transferred in May, 2015 and he is
going to superannuate in December, 2016. She had stated that having regard
to the fact that the petitioner had recently been transferred to FHQ BSF
Hospital-II, Tigri, there was no good reason for him to be transferred once
again and that too in less than one year, to the 95th Battalion, at Bhondsi,
Haryana particularly when his wife's medical condition continues to remain
precarious as she is regularly undergoing dialysis at B.L. Kapoor Hospital,
New Delhi. She had requested that the petitioner be accommodated till he
superannuates in December, 2016.
3. In view of the aforesaid submission, the matter was adjourned for
today and in the meantime, the respondents were directed not to take any
coercive steps against the petitioner in terms of the impugned Signal dated
16.3.2016. Counsel for the respondents was also directed to obtain
instructions from the department and clarify as to whether two vacancies
would come up in the near future at the BSF Hospitals at Tigri and R.K.
Puram.
4. Today, counsel for the petitioner states that contrary to the order dated
4.4.2016, vide order dated 11.4.2016, the respondents have directed the
petitioner to report to the Bhondsi location at Haryana with immediate
effect. The said document is handed over and taken on record.
5. Mr. Mohan, learned counsel for the respondents states that prior to
filing the present petition, the petitioner had submitted a representation dated
8.4.2015, wherein he had assured his superior officers that if his request for
being posted in any medical establishment in Delhi is acceded to, then he
shall extend his professional medical services to the health care beneficiaries
at the Bhondsi location on a regular basis. He submits that it was in view of
the aforesaid request that though the petitioner's place of posting was at
Delhi, he was permitted to render medical services at the Bhondsi location.
6. As for the status of the vacancy position at Tigri and R.K. Puram,
Delhi, we are informed that one vacancy each shall arise in June, 2016 at
Tigri and R.K. Puram respectively.
7. Having regard to the peculiar facts and circumstances of the present
case and keeping in mind the fact that the petitioner shall be superannuating
in December, 2016, which is eight months down the line and further, taking
into consideration the fact that one vacancy each shall come up at Tigri and
R.K. Puram in June, 2016, it is deemed appropriate to dispose of the present
petition with directions to the respondents to permit the petitioner to
continue rendering services from his permanent place of posting at Delhi
with the additional charge at Bhondsi, till a vacancy arises either at Tigri or
at R.K. Puram, and immediately thereafter, the petitioner shall be
accommodated at any of the aforesaid two places, till he superannuates in
December, 2016.
8. Needless to state that the order passed herein above is in the peculiar
facts and circumstances of the present case and shall not be treated as a
precedent in any other case.
9. The writ petition is disposed of, along with the pending application.
HIMA KOHLI, J
VIBHU BAKHRU, J
APRIL 18, 2016
sk/ap/rkb
