Delhi High Court
Ct/Gd Rajender Singh vs Union Of India & Ors. on 11 August, 2020
$~2
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of Decision: 11th August, 2020
+ W.P. (C) 5182/2020
CT/GD RAJENDER SINGH .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Anuj Aggarwal and Mr.
Shikhar Sheel, Advocates
versus
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. .....Respondents
Through: Mr.Naginder Benipal, Senior Panel
Counsel with Ms.Rupali Kapoor,
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE ASHA MENON
[VIA VIDEO CONFERENCING]
JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW
C.M. Applns.18654/2020 & 18655/2020 (Exemption from filing
true typed copies of certain annexures and seeking permission
to file copies of original documents which are dim, etc. and
from filing duly affirmed affidavits)
1. Allowed, subject to just exceptions and as per the extant
rules.
2. The applications are disposed of.
W.P. (C) 5182/2020
3. The petitioner, employed since 9th May, 2012 with the
respondents Sashastra Seema Bal (SSB), in the category of Ex-
Servicemen, after 22 years of service in the Indian Army, and from
2012 till now having been posted at Delhi, has filed this petition
impugning the order dated 10th June, 2020 declining the
petitioner's request seeking cancellation of his transfer to
Siddharthnagar (UP), as well as the order dated 18th July, 2020
relieving the petitioner from Delhi; mandamus is also sought, to
direct the respondents SSB to either retain the petitioner at the
present place of posting or to transfer him to a location where
sufficient and appropriate medical facilities are available.
4. It is the case of the petitioner, that (i) in 2014, the petitioner
was detected to be suffering from "Non-Critical Coronary Artery
Disease (NC-CAD)" and "Old Cerebrovascular Accident (CVA)";
(ii) that three stents have been put in the arteries of the petitioner,
in 2014, 2016 and 2018 respectively; (iii) the medical category of
the petitioner though has been graded to be SHAPE-3 (Permanent)
but the petitioner was found to be fit for continuing in government
service beyond 50 years of age; (iv) that the petitioner has been
representing to the authorities against the order of transfer dated
21st February, 2020, but representations of the petitioner have been
rejected on 10th June, 2020, with a non-speaking order; and, (v)
upon the petitioner not joining at the place of posting, a
Memorandum dated 29th July, 2020 also has been issued to the
petitioner.
5. The counsel for the petitioner, before us, has contended that
the petitioner, for his medical reasons, as per the Rules/Office
Memorandums, is required to be posted at a place within 30-40
minutes driving distance from a medical facility and
Siddharthnagar, where the petitioner has been posted, is five hours'
driving distance from Lucknow. Emphasis is also laid on the
impugned order being a non-speaking one and having not dealt
with the grounds contained in the representations of the petitioner.
6. The officers of the Forces like SSB, authorized to deal with
such representations, are not judges and are not trained in writing
orders like pleadings and orders of the court and are not required to
give detailed reasons. Once in the order dated 10th June, 2020, it
has been recorded that the representations have been considered
and no merit had been found therein, in our opinion, the same is
sufficient. It cannot be lost sight of that transfer is a exigency of a
service as of SSB and the petitioner having already stayed at Delhi
for over 8 years, has no right to continue at Delhi and/or to be
posted at a place of his liking. The decisions of the representations
against transfer have to be viewed in this light and not like a
appellate court. No requirement to give reasons in an order dealing
with the representation against the transfer order, also is shown.
7. The counsel for the respondents SSB appearing on advance
notice, to assuage the fears of the petitioner, also states that his
instructions are that Siddharthnagar is a fully developed area, with
plenty of medical facilities.
8. Per contra the petition is silent as to the medical facilities at
Siddharthnagar. Even otherwise, Forces like the SSB make their
own provisions for providing medical assistance to their
personnel/officers posted at each place and for this reason also, we
are not convinced with the reason being given by the petitioner to
avoid transfer out from Delhi, where he has already been posted for
the last eight years. In our stint over this Roster, we are finding a
large number of personnel posted at Delhi, showing reluctance to
be moved out of Delhi and challenging their transfer order before
the Court, on some ground or the other; the Forces like the SSB,
cannot be expected to keep all their personnel in the Capital City
and by the very nature of the duties the Forces are to perform, their
personnel are required to be posted at different locations.
9. All that we can observe is, that if the petitioner, after joining
at Siddharthnagar, is found to suffer from any medical ailment
which cannot be attended to at Siddharthnagar or in the vicinity, on
the petitioner making representation, the authorities concerned may
consider the same. Else, no merit is found in the petition.
10. Dismissed.
RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW
(JUDGE)
ASHA MENON
(JUDGE)
AUGUST 11, 2020
s/pkb
