Valmiki J. Mehta, J.

1. Learned counsel for the petitioner was heard at length not only today but also on two earlier dates viz. on 29.01.2013 and 28.02.2013.

2. The petitioners in these cases are employees of the respondent No. 2. Respondent No. 2 is an entity independent of the respondent No. 1/Government of NCT of Delhi and the respondent No.3/Central Government.

3. Petitioners were specifically appointed with respect to a Composite Pattern Scheme to be implemented with respect to family planning. Respondent No. 2 was running various schemes and one such scheme was the Composite Pattern Scheme. Since the Composite Pattern Scheme was being closed, some employees were adjusted in other schemes in Delhi, whereas, the petitioners were sought to be transferred outside Delhi where other schemes of respondent No.2/employer were being carried out/implemented.

4. It is at this stage, that the writ petitions were filed in 2006 challenging the transfer orders and seeking reliefs against the closure of the particular centre of the Composite Pattern Project at Delhi, where the petitioners were engaged in the family planning centres.

5. The Constitution Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court