Delhi High Court
Yogender Kumar vs Union Of India & Anr. on 18 September, 2017
$~24.
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ WRIT PETITION(CIVIL) No. 10448/2016
Date of decision: 18th September, 2017
YOGENDER KUMAR ..... Petitioner
Through Mr. Pramod Kumar, Advocate.
versus
UNION OF INDIA & ANR. ..... Respondents
Through Mr. Kirtiman Singh, CGSC
alongwith Mr. Waize Ali Noor and Vivek
Singh, Advocates.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAVIN CHAWLA
SANJIV KHANNA, J. (ORAL):
C.M. No. 33644/2017
We are not inclined to recall our order dated 16th August, 2017
closing the right of the petitioner to file rejoinder affidavit. Counter
affidavit, it is noticed, was filed on 28th April, 2017.
We also notice that the petitioner has not filed a copy of the
rejoinder affidavit even with the application seeking permission to file
rejoinder affidavit.
The application is dismissed.
W.P. (C) No. 10448/2016 Page 1 of 4
WRIT PETITION(CIVIL) No. 10448/2016
The petitioner is a Constable in Central Reserve Police Force.
He impugns transfer/movement order dated 21 st October, 2016 and
24th October, 2016 requiring him to report to 23rd Battalion stationed
at Srinagar, Jammu and Kashmir.
2. The petitioner was earlier posted in the Law Directorate, New
Delhi on 10th March, 2016.
3. The grievance made by the petitioner is that he has been singled
out, whereas there are other officers, who continue to remain posted in
Delhi. It is asserted that tenure of service in choice posting area is
four years, whereas the petitioner has been transferred from the place
of choice posting within fifteen months by adopting pick and choose
policy.
4. By order dated 4th November, 2016 notice was issued, but no
interim order was passed and it was observed that the order of transfer
would abide by the final result in the writ petition. The petitioner
consequent thereto has joined and complied with the transfer posting.
5. Order dated 4th November, 2016 had directed the Deputy
Inspector General (Establishment) to consider the representation-
Annexure P-4 made by the petitioner. The representation has been
considered and disposed of vide order dated 28th November, 2016.
We have reservations on some of the observations made in paragraph
6 of the order dated 28th November, 2016. However, we are not
W.P. (C) No. 10448/2016 Page 2 of 4
inclined to interfere with the transfer and movement order in the
present case.
6. The tenure profile of the petitioner would indicate that the
petitioner was posted in Delhi from 15th March, 2009 till 23rd
November, 2012, for about three years and eight months. The
petitioner thereafter on 9th July, 2015 was posted in Delhi in the
Director General's office. The petitioner had a tenure of fifteen
months in Delhi till the movement order dated 21 st October, 2016.
The order dated 28th November, 2016 of the Deputy Inspector General
(Establishment) would show that there were difficulties in retaining
the petitioner in his earlier posting in the Law Department. It was
necessary to transfer the petitioner on administrative grounds. The
petitioner, it is pointed out in the counter affidavit, has had peace or
soft area posting for nearly four years and ten months. The petitioner
has had hard area posting for about five years and five months. The
last hard area posting was between 22nd May, 2013 to 8th July, 2015 in
Paturpura. These factors have been taken into consideration.
7. The respondents have clarified that Constables are not
specifically attached to a particular battalion and get transferred from
one battalion to the other and depending upon the place where the
battalion is situated/located and the Constables like the petitioner get
posted.
8. Counsel for the petitioner, during the course of arguments,
wanted to raise new assertions orally, which were not adverted to in
the writ petition. We have not allowed the petitioner to make the said
W.P. (C) No. 10448/2016 Page 3 of 4
assertions. In fact, after some time, counsel for the petitioner states
that he would not press the oral assertions.
9. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we do not find any reason to
interfere with the movement/transfer order and accordingly the writ
petition is dismissed, without any order as to costs. We hope and trust
that the filing of the writ petition would not be construed as a negative
factor on conduct in the service record of the petitioner.
SANJIV KHANNA, J.
NAVIN CHAWLA, J.
SEPTEMBER 18, 2017
VKR/MR
