Delhi High Court
Archana Kumari vs Union Of India & Ors. on 25 April, 2022
$~94
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of decision: 25.04.2022
+ W.P.(C) 6358/2022
ARCHANA KUMARI ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr.Raj Singh Phogat, Adv.
versus
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. ..... Respondents
Through: Mr.Jivesh Kr. Tiwari, Adv.
Mr.Vivek Nagar, Government Pleader
for Respondent No.1 with Mr.Neeraj
Nagar, Ms.Piya Sharma & Mr.Sonu
Rana, Advs.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESH KUMAR KAIT
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDHIR KUMAR JAIN
J U D G M E N T (oral)
CM APPL. 19213/2022 (exemption)
1. The application is allowed, with a direction to the applicant to file
requisite certified, true typed copies and margins of dim annexures within
four weeks.
2. The application is accordingly disposed of.
W.P.(C) 6358/2022 & CM APPL. 19212/2022
3. Present petition has been preferred by the petitioner seeking quashing
and setting aside of the impugned order FHQR letter No.E-38014/38th IST-
2022/Estt-II/2022/1207 dated 28.03.2022 passed by respondent no.2 and
order no.E-38014/(5)/2/2022/AS/ADM/Posting Gen Corr/4211 dated
09.04.2022 passed by respondent no.3. In addition, stay of the impugned
afore-noted order is sought during pendency of this petition.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner, a Lady
Constable, is working in Central Industrial Security Force under the
Ministry of Home Affairs and has already completed the out of zone/sector
service tenure of more than 14 years. In November 2020, petitioner had
purchased a flat in Delhi and thereby respondents changed the data in the
system and now it shows petitioner has not served in out of service sector
tenure by wrongly counting her service of north sector as home sector
whereas she is native of Bihar.
5. Learned counsel further submits that petitioner's husband Sub
Inspector Mukesh Kumar is posted in CISF unit, SSG, Noida (U.P.) and
petitioner deserves to be allowed to remain with her husband, however, her
department is harassing her by transferring her to the out of home sector
which is in violation of DoPT order dated 30.09.2009.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that aggrieved by
the aforesaid transfer order, petitioner had filed a representation dated
12.04.2022 to the respondents which is yet to be decided.
7. Notice issued.
8. Learned counsel for the respondents accepts notice and has drawn
attention of this court to the service order No.211/2022 dated 28.03.2022
issued by the respondents wherein it has been stated that if any individual
prefers a representation regarding the impugned transfer order before
14.04.2022, the same shall be decided on 28.04.2022
9. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, it is established that
against the impugned transfer order dated 28.03.2022, petitioner has filed
representation dated 12.04.2022 which is pending consideration and disposal
at the end of respondents.
10. Accordingly, we hereby dispose of the present petition by directing
the respondents to decide the representation of the petitioner dated
12.04.2022 within the time stipulated i.e. 28.04.2022 and till then, impugned
order dated 28.03.2022 shall not be given effect to.
11. With the aforesaid directions, the present petition is disposed of.
12. Needless to state that if the petitioner is aggrieved by the order to be
passed in the representation, she may challenge it before the appropriate
forum.
13. Pending application, if any, stands disposed of.
(SURESH KUMAR KAIT)
JUDGE
(SUDHIR KUMAR JAIN)
JUDGE
APRIL 25, 2022
ab
