A.K. Sikri, J.

1. The petitioner is a Member of Delhi Higher Judicial Service. After 15 years of practice at the Bar, she was selected to the said service and joined as Additional District & Sessions Judge, Delhi on 26.11.2002. At the relevant time, i.e. in January 2007, she was posted as Special Judge, NDPS, Tis Hazari. This posting was given to her on 6.1.2006. Vide orders dated 22.1.2007, she is transferred as Presiding Officer, Labour Court at Karkardooma. By this order, change of postings and transfers in respect of three more judicial officers is effected. This order reads as under:

HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

No. 66/Gaz-1/VLE.2(a)/2007

Dated, the 22nd January, 2007

ORDER:

Honble the Chief Justice and Honble Judges of this Court been pleased to make the following postings/transfers in the Delhi Higher Judicial Service with immediate effect:

S.No. NAME OF THE OFFICER FROM TO REMARKS

1. 1. Mr. V.P. Vaish Registrar (Vigilance) Delhi High Court Addl. Sessions Judge, Rohini Vice Mr. Yogesh Khanna

2. Mr. Yogesh Khanna Addl. Sessions Judge, Rohini Addl. Sessions Judge (NDPS), Tis Hazari Vice Ms. Sujata Kohli

3. Ms. Sujata Kohli Addl. Sessions Judge (NDPS), Tis Hazari Presiding officer, Labour Court, Karkardooma Vice Mr. Sanjay Kumar

4. Mr. Sanjay Kumar Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Karkardooma Addl. District Judge (LAC), Tis Hazari In the Court vacated by Ms. Maina, Sehgal

By order of the Court

Sd/-

(AJIT BHARIHOKE)

Registrar General

2. The petitioner feels aggrieved by her transfer, as aforesaid, as she perceives this transfer by way of punishment. She has dubbed this transfer as unjust, unfair, arbitrary, mala fide and in gross violation of the principles of natural justice. As per the petitioner, this transfer order has been passed under the following circumstances which has tainted the impugned order:

.3. According to the petitioner, the impugned order is at the behest of the office bearers of the Delhi Bar Association at Tis Hazari and some lawyers practicing there. She traces the genesis thereof by alleging that on 26.5.2004 when the lawyers of Delhi Bar Association had gone on strike and she was holding the Court of Motor Accidents Claim Tribunal (MACT), keeping in view the mandate of the High Court not to take cognizance of such strike, she was going ahead with the judicial work as usual. However, the Secretary of the Bar Association entered her Court and threatened her to stop recording evidence as the Bar was on strike.

When the petitioner refused, the Secretary told her in the open Court "Naukri Karni Hai, Ki Nahi". This was treated by the petitioner as contempt of the Court. She, thereforee, recorded this happening and forwarded contempt reference to the High Court with request to initiate appropriate action thereon. However, no cognizance was taken. Emboldened by this in action, on 28.5.2004 a boycott call was given by the Association against the petitioners court with effect from 31.5.2004, which continued till the first week of August 2004. She apprised the High Court about the same with request to initiate proper action and sent another contempt reference dated 28.5.2004. No action was taken even on this reference. On the contrary, after about 11 months, she received communication dated 26.4.2005 from the Registrar (Admn./Judicial) advising her to make proper reference in accordance with law. She even sent proper contempt reference on 10.5.2005, as advised, but no action was taken even thereafter.

4. She further alleged that in the year 2006, while the Advocates strike was continuing as a protest against the bifurcation and shifting of Courts to the newly constructed Rohini Complex, this Court directed all the officers of the subordinate judiciary not to succumb to the striking advocates and to function as if there was no strike. Agitated by the above, the members of Delhi Bar Assoc