Delhi High Court
Brijesh Kumar Pandey vs Director General Border Security ... on 27 May, 2016
$~10
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 4992/2016 & CMs No.20863-64/2016
BRIJESH KUMAR PANDEY ..... Petitioner
Through : Mr. Srinivasa Rao K., Advocate
versus
DIRECTOR GENERAL BORDER SECURITY FORCE & ANR
..... Respondents
Through : Mr. Vikram Jetly with
Mr. Arun Kumar, Advocates
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE HIMA KOHLI
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR
ORDER
% 27.05.2016
1. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner impugning the
transfer order dated 14.5.2016, whereunder he has been directed to report to
the 103rd Battalion, at Jaishalmer, Rajasthan.
2. Counsel for the petitioner states that the petitioner had joined the
respondent/BSF as a Constable (GD) on 10.4.1995 and is presently posted at
the 25th Battalion at Chhawla Camp, New Delhi. On 30.11.2015, the
petitioner was promoted to the rank of a Head Constable (GD). Six months
down the line, the petitioner has received the impugned Movement Order
dated 14.5.2016, thereby curtailing his minimum assured tenure of three
years to six months. Hence, the present petition.
3. Counsel for the respondents, who appears on advance notice, draws
our attention to Rule 9 of the Border Security Force (Tenure of Posting and
Deputation) Rules, 2000 (Annexure P-3) that relates to "Posting on
Promotion". The said Rule states that the tenure rule shall not be applied in
promotion cases. It is submitted that the petitioner having been promoted as
Head Constable (GD) on 30.11.2015, cannot insist on an assured tenure
posting of three years.
4. When confronted with the aforesaid position, counsel for the
petitioner states, on instructions, that the petitioner is ready and willing to
give up his promotion and an averment to that effect has been made by him
in his representation dated 19.5.2016, submitted to the respondents.
5. However, a perusal of the representation dated 19.5.2016 submitted
by the petitioner does not bear out the said submission. The said
representation only mentions that the petitioner had completed only six
months of his tenure, whereas a Head Constable (GD) is entitled for a tenure
of three years. No other plea has been taken by the petitioner for seeking
cancellation of the impugned Movement Order dated 14.5.2016.
6. In view of the submission made by the counsel for the petitioner that
the petitioner is willing to file a representation with the respondents for
foregoing his promotion so that his Movement Order dated 14.5.2016 can be
cancelled, the present petition is disposed of with liberty granted to the
petitioner to file a representation within two weeks, which shall be duly
considered and decided by the respondents by passing a speaking order
within one week from the date of receipt thereof, under written intimation to
the petitioner.
7. The writ petition is disposed of, along with the pending applications.
HIMA KOHLI, J
SUNIL GAUR, J
MAY 27, 2016
sk
