Delhi High Court
Chaman Lal vs Union Of India And Ors on 22 July, 2025
Author: C.Hari Shankar
Bench: C. Hari Shankar
$~112
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 10487/2025 & CM APPLs. 43550/2025, 43551/2025
CHAMAN LAL .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Nikhil Bhardwaj, Adv.
versus
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS .....Respondents
Through: Mr. Balendu Shekhar CGSC,
Mr. Krishna Chaitanya GP, Mr. Divyansh
Singh Dev, Advs.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C. HARI SHANKAR
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE OM PRAKASH SHUKLA
ORDER (ORAL)
% 22.07.2025
C.HARI SHANKAR, J.
1. The petitioner, who serves in the Sashastra Seema Bal1, was
earlier transferred from Delhi to Balrampur, Uttar Pradesh. He
assailed the said transfer before this Court by way of WP (C)
8884/20252.
2. It was pointed out, in the said petition, that the petitioner's wife
had donated a kidney to him, as a result of which the petitioner and his
"SSB" hereinafter
Chaman Lal v UOI
wife were both surviving with one kidney each and that his father was
on dialysis and his daughter was studying in Class X.
3. The petitioner had represented against his transfer to
Balrampur. However, the representation was rejected by an
unreasoned order on 17 June 2025.
4. In these circumstances, this court, by its order dated 3 July
2025, disposed of WP (C) 8884/2025 with a direction to the
respondents to treat the writ petition as a representation and to pass a
reasoned and speaking order on the petitioner's challenge to his
transfer to Balrampur.
5. The respondent has, pursuant to our directions, passed an order
on 17 July 2025. The order, clearly, is a reasoned order.
6. The order notes that, keeping in view the difficulties expressed
by the petitioner, his transfer had been modified and the petitioner was
now being posted at Guwahati.
7. Mr. Balendu Shekhar, learned CGSC, who appears for the
respondent submits that, in order to ensure that the medical treatment
of the petitioner's family is not affected and his daughter does not
suffer, the respondents have permitted the petitioner to retain his
residential accommodation in Delhi.
8. We may reproduce, in this context, paras 11 and 12 of the order
dated 17 July 2025, passed by the respondents, thus:
"11. And Whereas, in compliance of Hon'ble Court direction, a
Board of Officers was constituted which includes Medical Officer
to examine the case of CT(Driver) Chaman Lal. The Board of
officers considered the Writ Petition as well as the medical
documents and are of the opinion that CT(Driver) Chaman Lal
should be posted to 1st Bn Sonapur (Guwahati) in view of good
medical facilities, including AIIMS, GMCH, etc available there,
where he can go for review at the Nephrology department. As per
RME board he is fit for all duties except severe stress, and has
placed restriction on employability at high altitude/hilly terrain.
Furthermore, the judgment quoted by the petitioner is not
applicable in his case as he has already been granted extension on
humanitarian ground and has availed period equivalent to two
tenures at Force Hqrs, New Delhi.
12. Therefore, as per Hon'ble Court Orders in the WP (C) No.
8884/2025, the representation of the official has been reconsidered
by the board in light of his medical condition and child's ongoing
studies at Delhi and has posted him to 01 BNSSB Sonapur (Assam
where higher medical facilities like the AIIMS, GMC&H are
available, thereby also facilitating retention of his GPRA quarter in
Delhi to meet the medical needs of his family and educational
needs of his child."
9. Mr. Bhardwaj, learned Counsel for the petitioner, has earnestly
sought to pursue us to interfere in the matter, as he submits that the
petitioner and his family are in very difficult circumstances. He points
out that the petitioner's father has to undergo dialysis thrice a week
and that a central line has also been placed, which makes him
susceptible to infection. He also seeks to rely on literature which
would indicate that persons who are surviving with one kidney each
have their own health concerns.
10. While we empathize with the petitioner, there are limits beyond
which a writ court cannot travel. The respondents, we feel, have been
fair in allowing the petitioner to retain his residential accommodation.
That facility would itself cater to the petitioner's daughter's education,
as she would be in a position to complete her education in Delhi.
11. Insofar as the other circumstances pointed out by Mr. Bhardwaj
are concerned, we are of the opinion that, once the petitioner has been
permitted to retain his accommodation at Delhi, we would be
overstepping our jurisdiction if we issue a mandamus to the
respondent not to transfer the petitioner to Guwahati.
12. We, therefore, regret that we are not in a position to interfere in
the present writ petition.
13. However, this would not preclude the respondents from, if they
so choose, reconsidering the petitioner's prayer. We make it clear, in
that event, no observation contained in this order would stand in the
way of a fresh consideration.
14. Subject to the aforesaid, the writ petition stands dismissed.
C.HARI SHANKAR, J.
OM PRAKASH SHUKLA, J.
JULY 22, 2025/ng
