Delhi High Court
Satish Kumar vs Union Of India & Ors. on 12 June, 2020
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of decision: 12th June, 2020.
+ W.P.(C) 3469/2020 & CM No.12291/2020 (for interim relief)
SATISH KUMAR ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Debashis Mukherjee, Mr. Srijib
Chakraborty, Mr. Pankaj Aggarwal
and Mr. Parma Nand, Advs.
Versus
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Vikrant Goyal, Adv.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE ASHA MENON
[VIA VIDEO CONFERENCING]
RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J.
1. Yesterday, when this petition came up first before us, the following
order was passed:
"3. The petitioner, a Commandant in the respondents BSF and
presently posted at Siliguri, impugns the order dated 26th May
2020 transferring the petitioner vide SHQ (Pers Sec) Signal
No.R3213 to SHQ G-Noida (THQ-Durg).
4. It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner was
earlier ordered to be transferred from Siliguri to Kolkata but
could not join at Kolkata owing to the prevalent pandemic and
by way of punishment, for not joining at Kolkata, has now been
posted to Chhattisgarh.
5. However it is the own case of the petitioner that there was
an order restraining the petitioner to move out of Siliguri and
thus it cannot be said that the cancellation of the transfer order
to Kolkata and the transfer order to Chhattisgarh is punitive.
Counsel for the petitioner himself has fairly stated that unless a
case of transfer being punitive is made out, the transfer order is
not interferable.
6. Though we have heard counsel for the petitioner as well
as counsel for the respondents BSF appearing on advance
notice, but the counsel for the petitioner now states that the
petitioner, simultaneously with filing this petition, has again
represented and the authorities have asked him to furnish four
options where the petitioner would like to be transferred,
considering the fact that the petitioner is due to superannuate in
the year 2023, and the petitioner has been assured that he will be
transferred to one of the four options/choices furnished by him.
7. Counsel for the respondents to obtain instructions by
tomorrow.
8. List on 12th June, 2020.
9. The authorities concerned of the respondents are directed
to ensure that instructions are received by counsel for the
respondents.
10. A copy of this order be immediately forwarded
electronically to counsel for the respondents to enable him to
forward the same to the concerned authorities for compliance."
2. The counsel for the respondents today informs us, that the petitioner
has given three options within the State of West Bengal itself and one option
of Gauhati and neither of which is a suitable option to post the petitioner at.
He has also informed that the petitioner, for the last over ten years, has been
posted in the State of West Bengal only and there are other reasons for the
respondents not wanting the petitioner to be now posted in West Bengal or
near about. As far as the medical reason of the parents of the petitioner is
concerned, it is stated that Raipur, where there is an All India Institute of
Medical Sciences (AIIMS), is very close to Durg, Chhattisgarh where the
petitioner has now been ordered to be posted and thus the medical ailments
of the parents of the petitioner have not been found to be a ground, for not
posting the petitioner at Durg.
3. The counsel for the petitioner states that no order has been passed on
the representation of the petitioner qua medical grounds of his parents and
this petition may be disposed of, directing the respondents to consider the
representation of the petitioner and pass an order thereon within two or three
days and the petitioner be not relieved from his present posting at Siliguri,
till then. It is contended that the petitioner has a right to have his
representation against the transfer decided, by a speaking order.
4. It is also contended that as per the impugned transfer order, though
the petitioner is to be relieved by 15th June, 2020 but time for joining at the
place of fresh posting has been granted till 30th June, 2020. It is argued that
thus no prejudice will be served, if a speaking order were to be passed on the
representation of the petitioner within two or three days. Certain other
reasons against the posting at Durg, have also been urged.
5. Having considered the respective submissions, we are of the view that
neither any case for interference with transfer of the petitioner nor a case of
directing the respondents to pass a speaking order is made out. Once the
petitioner had preferred a petition to this Court and on which petition the
respondents were directed to take instructions and have taken instructions
with respect to the medical grounds urged of the parents of the petitioner,
disposing of the petition by directing the respondents to pass a speaking
order would only result in multiplicity of litigations and forum hunting.
6. Resultantly, the petition is dismissed.
No costs.
RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J.
ASHA MENON, J.
JUNE 12, 2020
'bs'
