Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
SURESH KUMAR KAIT, NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA, JJ.
SANDEEP KUMAR – Petitioner
Versus
UNION OF INDIA – Respondent
W.P. (C) No. 610 of 2023, C.M. APPL. No. 2396 of 2023
Decided On : 31-01-2023
Constitution of India, 1949 – Seeking Quashing of Movement Order – Petitioner is seeking quashing of movement order issued qua petitioner directing movement of petitioner directions to respondents to post petitioner at New Delhi or near his home town where he can undergo treatment for his medical condition properly – Held, Learned counsel for petitioner submits category petitioner is fit for sedentary duties not involving undue stress – Restricted employability as advised by medical authorities such as to avoid places with high humidity have access to specialist services avoid driving handling of weapons near water fire or heavy machinery restricting physical access work in desert snow bound areas – Petition accordingly dismissed.
JUDGMENT :
1. Vide the present petition, the petitioner is seeking quashing of movement order dated 27.12.2022 issued qua the petitioner directing the movement of the petitioner to 45 Bn BSF, Tura, FTR HQ, Ghty; directions to the respondents to post the petitioner at New Delhi or near his home town, where he can undergo treatment for his medical condition properly.
2. Learned Senior Panel Counsel for respondents, on instructions, submits that admittedly the petitioner is in P-3 category and accordingly, he is posted at 45 Bn BSF, Tura which is 5-6 hours journey from Guwahati where the main hospital is situated.
3. Learned Senior Panel Counsel for respondents further submits that for regular check-up of the petitioner, doctor is available at Tura and in case of any emergency, the petitioner may be taken to Guwahati in a government vehicle. Moreover, for routine check-up and as and when required, the petitioner can go to Guwahati by government vehicle which comes to Tura from Guwahati almost every day.
4. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that as per P-3 category, petitioner is fit for sedentary duties not involving undue stress. He may have restricted employability as advised by medical authorities such as to avoid places with high humidity level 75% round the year, to have access to specialist services nearby, to avoid driving/handling of weapons near water, fire or heavy machinery, restricting physical access, work in desert/snow bound areas etc., restricting active participation in hostilities, counter insurgency operations etc. (excluding staff, logistics and allied support duties).
5. Learned Senior Panel Counsel for respondents, on instructions, has assured this Court that as per entitlement, petitioner shall be provided each and every facility and duties shall be assigned to him accordingly.
6. In view of above, we find no ground to allow the present petition and the same is, accordingly, dismissed.
7. Pending application also stands disposed of.
The court emphasized the necessity of adherence to medical guidelines for postings and ruled in favor of compassionate treatment of personnel with serious health conditions.
The main legal point established is that in cases of transfer on medical grounds, the court will consider the petitioner's compliance with standing orders and the medical assessment of fitness for tr....
The central legal point established in the judgment is the importance of considering the delicate physical health condition of personnel and adhering to transfer guidelines when making transfer and p....
A government servant holding a transferable post has no vested right to remain posted at one place or other, and transfer orders should be based on administrative exigency and not arbitrarily or for ....
Public administration must accommodate employees' medical conditions in job assignments, ensuring justice and fairness in employment reassignment.
Government servants can be transferred in administrative exigencies, and courts are reluctant to interfere with transfer orders unless there is a violation of statutory provisions or mala fides.
The discretion of the Armed Forces in transfer matters and the exigency of service should be respected by the court, especially in matters pertaining to the Armed Forces.
The main legal point established is that transfer in a transferable job is an exigency of service, and the Courts should not readily interfere with transfer orders made in public interest and for adm....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
