Delhi High Court
Rajeev Kumar vs Union Of India & Ors. on 23 February, 2022
$~35
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 3056/2022
RAJEEV KUMAR ..... Petitioner
Through Mr.Ankur Chhibber with
Mr.Himanshu Gautam, Advocates.
versus
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. ..... Respondents
Through Mr.Anurag Ahluwalia, CGSC with
Mr.Danish Faraz Khan, Advocate.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAVIN CHAWLA
ORDER
% 23.02.2022
% Date of Decision: 23rd February, 2022
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAVIN CHAWLA
JUDGMENT
MANMOHAN, J: (Oral)
C.M.No.8855/2022
Exemption allowed, subject to all just exceptions.
Accordingly, the application stands disposed of.
W.P.(C) No.3056/2022 & C.M.No.8854/2022
1. The petition has been heard by way of video conferencing.
2. Present writ petition has been filed challenging the impugned orders
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:JASWANT
Signing Date:28.02.2022
11:32:37
dated 25th January, 2022 and 07th February, 2022 whereby the Petitioner has
been transferred from 233(M) Bn, Lucknow to 153 Bn Bijapur Chhattisgarh.
Petitioner also seeks directions to the Respondents to allow the Petitioner to
complete his normal tenure of three years at 233 (M) Bn Lucknow.
3. On the last date of hearing, learned counsel for the Petitioner had
stated that the Petitioner had been posted out of his current place of posting
to a hard place of posting in violation of the Standing Order 07/2014 dated
24th November, 2014 which specifically provides for a tenure of three years
at a particular unit. He had stated that the Petitioner's current place of
posting at Lucknow was his first peace posting after serving for almost
seventeen years and within four months of his joining at Lucknow, the
Petitioner had been posted out to a Category 'A' location at Bijapur,
Chhattisgarh.
4. He had stated that on 02nd June, 2021, the Petitioner was transferred
from Imphal, Manipur to 153Bn Bijapur, Chhattisgarh, a very hard field area
falling under Category 'A' as specified in Standing Order 07/2014. He had
pointed out that the Petitioner had challenged the posting to Bijapur before
the Manipur High Court by way of W.P.(C) No.419/2021 and after the
Respondents cancelled the Petitioner's posting to Bijapur, the writ petition
was dismissed as infructuous.
5. He had also stated that subsequently, the Petitioner was posted to his
current place of posting at Lucknow and was promoted to the post of 2IC.
He pointed out that in January 2022, the Petitioner came to know that he was
being considered for transfer from Lucknow against which the Petitioner
had represented to the Inspector General, Central zone and vide order dated
05th January, 2022, the office of the Inspector General had held that as the
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:JASWANT
Signing Date:28.02.2022
11:32:37
Petitioner had not completed his tenure of three years at Lucknow, he must
not be transferred.
6. The contention of learned counsel for the Petitioner was that the
Respondents had passed the same posting order which was challenged
before the Manipur High Court and transferred the Petitioner to Bijapur
within a period of six months from the date of the disposal of the writ
petition preferred by the Petitioner.
7. Per contra, learned counsel for the Respondents, on the last date of
hearing, had stated that the Petitioner was deputed at Manipur as a Deputy
Commandant and had been transferred to Lucknow as a Deputy
Commandant on 08th September, 2021. He had further stated that the
Petitioner had been promoted from the rank of Deputy Commandant to the
rank of 2IC in December, 2021 and in accordance with the Clause (xiii) of
the Standing Order 07/2014, the Petitioner had been posted to Field Area of
Category 'A' unit location. He had emphasised that out of twenty-two
officers who had been promoted to Category 'A', fifteen officers had been
transferred to Category 'A' unit location and out of those fifteen officers,
nine officers had been transferred to Category 'A' for the first time.
8. In rejoinder, learned counsel for the petitioner had stated that the
Petitioner had always been posted in Category 'A' location and, as a
consequence, he was entitled to the benefit of Clause (xi) of the Standing
Order 07/2014 and was not liable to be transferred/posted to Field Area of
Category 'A' unit location. At that stage, learned counsel for the
Respondents had taken time to obtain instructions.
9. Today learned counsel for the Respondents has produced the posting
chart of the Petitioner, which shows that he had never been posted in any
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:JASWANT
Signing Date:28.02.2022
11:32:37
Category 'A' unit location.
10. Learned counsel for the Petitioner states that the categorization of unit
location has been introduced on 08th June, 2017 and prior to 2017 the
Petitioner had been posted in a hard area.
11. However, this Court finds that the Petitioner in the present writ
petition only relies upon Standing Order 07/2014 and not upon any prior
policy or circular. In fact, Clause (xiii) of the said Standing Order
No.07/2014 specifically stipulates that "officer on promotion.............should
be first posted to Field Area of Category-"A" unit locations......".
12. Admittedly, Clause (xi), relied upon by learned counsel for the
Petitioner, is not attracted to the present case as the Petitioner has never been
posted in a Category 'A' unit location. In fact, a 'misstatement' had been
made before this Court on the last date of hearing by the petitioner.
13. In the present case, the Respondents have done nothing more than to
follow their rules and policies that they had stipulated in the Standing Order
07/2014.
14. Consequently, the impugned orders are fair, just and reasonable.
Accordingly, the present writ petition along with pending application is
dismissed.
MANMOHAN, J
NAVIN CHAWLA, J
FEBRUARY 23, 2022
KA
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:JASWANT
Signing Date:28.02.2022
11:32:37
