Delhi High Court
Major Siddhesh Rane vs Union Of India & Ors. on 18 September, 2020
$~13
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 6203/2020 & CM No.22232/2020 (for ad-interim directions)
MAJOR SIDDHESH RANE ..... Petitioner
Through: Ms. Archana Ramesh, Adv.
Versus
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Avnish Singh, Adv.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE ASHA MENON
ORDER
% 18.09.2020
[VIA VIDEO CONFERENCING]
1. On 10th September, 2020, when this petition came up first before this
Court, the following order was passed:-
"3. The petitioner, a Major in the respondents Indian Army
and presently posted at Siliguri, has filed this petition
impugning the order dated 31st August, 2020 posting him to
Jammu.
4. It is the case of the petitioner, that (i) the petitioner was
married on 27th November, 2014; (ii) the wife of the
petitioner also is a Major in the respondents Indian Army;
(iii) since marriage for the last six years, the petitioner and
his wife have not been posted at the same place and were
given a couple posting only six months back, at Siliguri; and,
(iv) the petitioner and his wife are both 33 years of age and
are childless and their childbearing age is soon running out
and if not allowed to reside at the same place, would perhaps
remain childless.
5. The counsel for the petitioner states that the petitioner and
his wife have no desire to be posted at any particular place
but all they want is that they should be posted together,
wherever it may be, so that they can live as husband and wife.
6. The counsel for the respondents Indian Army appearing on
advance notice states that the posting order has been issued
within six months of posting at Siliguri owing to the emergent
situation at the borders and the entire brigade of the
petitioner is moving and it is not as if a pick and choose
policy has been adopted.
7. The counsel for the petitioner controverts and states that
the brigade of the petitioner is at Sikkim but the petitioner is
being sent to Jammu.
8. Considering the aforesaid facts, while issuing notice of the
petition, which is accepted by the counsel for the respondents
Indian Army, we are of the view that a more humane
approach is expected in the matter and request the authorities
concerned to sympathetically consider the request of the
petitioner in this petition, if necessary by making an
exception, and unless the request is acceded to, a counter
affidavit be filed within one week.
9. List on 18th September, 2020."
2. The counsel for the respondents states that the authorities in the
Indian Army have considered the matter sympathetically and have
reconsidered the order posting the petitioner to Jammu and have posted the
petitioner at Siliguri only, where his wife is posted; it is also stated that he
has emailed the Signal issued in this regard.
3. The Signal emailed discloses the posting to be for 18 months only.
4. The counsel for the respondents states that since the petitioner and his
wife have been together at Siliguri already for six months and spousal
posting is given for a period of two years only, the posting at Siliguri of the
petitioner is for a period of 18 months only.
5. We feel the aforesaid time to be sufficient for the purpose for which
the petitioner had sought posting at the same station as his wife.
6. The counsel for the petitioner, while expressing gratitude to the
authorities concerned, for considering the request of the petitioner, states
that the wife of the petitioner should not be posted out of Siliguri during the
said 18 months.
7. Once it is stated that it is a spousal posting, it follows that the question
of the spouses being separated for the next 18 months does not arise.
8. With the aforesaid, the petition has served its purpose and is disposed
of, wishing all the very best to the petitioner in his endeavour for starting a
family.
RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J.
ASHA MENON, J.
SEPTEMBER 18, 2020
'bs'
