Delhi High Court
Yashpal Singh vs Union Of India & Ors. on 9 April, 2025
Author: C. Hari Shankar
Bench: C. Hari Shankar
$~54
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 4554/2025 & CM APPL. 21074/2025
YASHPAL SINGH .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Abhay Kumar Bhargava,
Mr. Satyarth Sinha and Ms. Khushi, Advs.
with Ms. Shilpi Rani
versus
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. .....Respondents
Through: Dr. B Ramaswamy, CGSC for
UOI
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C. HARI SHANKAR
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY DIGPAUL
JUDGMENT (ORAL)
% 09.04.2025
C. HARI SHANKAR, J.
1. The petitioner has approached this Court, seeking extension of
his tenure at Udhampur, in view of the fact that his daughter is in
Class X and his mother is ailing.
2. The main ground that has been urged is that his daughter is
studying in Class X and if the petitioner is relocated at this point of
time, it would have an adverse impact on her studies.
3. Ground (d) in the writ petition makes reference to an order
dated 9 August 2024 in WP (C) 11036/2024 which came up before
this Court and which involves an identical controversy.
4. The order dated 9 August 2024 reads thus:
"1. The petitioner has approached this Court under Article 226
of the Constitution of India assailing the order dated 29.06.2024
vide which he has been detached. from the ICT Department at New
Delhi where he was temporarily attached and has been directed to
report at the Headquarters of 132 Bn BSF.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that one of the
petitioner's sons is in. Class XII and the younger son is suffering
from epilepsy and therefore, in terms of their own policy, the
respondents ought to defer his posting till April 2025. He further
submits that though the petitioner has already submitted a
representation on 07.11.2023 for cancellation of the impugned
order, the respondents have till date not responded to the same,
compelling him to approach this Court.
3. Issue notice. Mr. Farman Ali, learned counsel who appears
on advance notice, accepts notice on behalf of the respondents. He
does not dispute that the petitioner's representation dated
07.11.2023 has still not been decided.
4. In these circumstances and taking into account the grounds
raised by the petitioner, we are of the view that in the first instance
the respondents should consider the petitioner's representation
compassionately.
5. We, therefore, dispose of the petition by directing the
respondents to decide within two weeks the petitioner's
representation dated 07.11.2023 by passing a reasoned and
speaking order. Needless to state that while considering· the
petitioner's representation, the respondents will take into account
the Posting/Transfer of Officers-Instructions the SOP dated
18.05.2010 pertaining to transfer of officers of the BSF. We further
direct that in case the petitioner's request for cancellation of the
impugned order is not accepted, the said order will not be
implemented for a period of one week in order to enable the
petitioner to avail of legal remedies, if necessary."
5. Dr. B Ramaswamy, learned CGSC for the respondent is
agreeable to a disposal of this writ petition in terms of the aforesaid
order.
6. Accordingly, this writ petition is disposed of by directing the
respondent to take a decision on the petitioner's representation dated
20 January 2025 within a period of three weeks from today by way of
a reasoned and speaking order. The respondents would take a decision
on the representation keeping in view the applicable instructions.
7. In the event that the prayer of the petitioner is not granted, the
order would remain in abeyance for a period of one week after it is
passed and communicated to the petitioner so as to enable the
petitioner to avail legal remedies thereagainst.
8. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of.
C. HARI SHANKAR, J.
AJAY DIGPAUL, J.
APRIL 9, 2025
dsn
Click here to check corrigendum, if any
