Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Suresh Kumar Kait, Mini Pushkarna, JJ.
Sasi Kumar P. – Appellant
Versus
Union of India Through Secretary & Ors. – Respondents
W.P.(C) 2605 of 2023
Decided On : 01-03-2023
Mandamus - Transfer Posting - The court directed the respondents to consider the petitioner's representation for transfer posting and make a decision within four weeks.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner sought setting aside of the respondents' orders and a writ of mandamus for transfer posting. The petitioner's representation for transfer was not placed before the Competent Authority, while similar representations were recommended for decision in other cases.
Finding of the Court:
The court disposed of the petition by directing the respondents to consider the petitioner's representation for transfer posting and make a decision within four weeks.
Issues: Discrimination in considering transfer representations, rejection of petitioner's representation, and seeking mandamus for transfer posting.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the need for the competent authority to consider the petitioner's representation for transfer posting and make a decision within a specified timeframe.
Final Decision: The court quashed the orders dated 30.09.2022 and 20.12.2022, and directed the respondents to consider the petitioner's representation for transfer posting within four weeks.
JUDGMENT (Oral)
1. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking setting aside of the order dated 20.09.2022 and 20.12.2022 passed by respondents and to issue a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to give him last leg posting as per Para-61 of chapter XXIV of Record Office Instruction.
2. Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that the petitioner had made a representation dated 30.08.2022 for his transfer to the respondents, however, the same has not been placed before the Competent Authority, which amounts to rejection of his representation.
3. Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents on advance notice submits that various representations have been made by his wife approaching the respondents through VIPS, therefore, vide order dated 28.02.2023 the competent authority has taken the decision to take necessary action under CCS CCA Rules 1965 against the petitioner through unit concerned for bringing the outside influence in the service matter.
4. The case of petitioner is that similarly situated personnel, namely, Suresh K.N. who was posted in the respondent-department on 08.08.2021 and made a request for transfer on 26.04.2022; his representation was recommended to be decided by the competent authority. However, in the case of petitioner such decision was not taken and he has been directed to approach after completion of two years of the present posting. Counsel for petitioner submits that in this manner, the respondents have discriminated the petitioner.
5. Without going into the controversy and commenting upon the merits of the case, we hereby dispose of the present petition directing the respondents to place petitioner's representation dated 30.08.2022 before the competent authority, who shall take decision within four weeks. The decision so taken shall be communicated to the petitioner within 3 days thereafter. Needless to say if the petitioner is still aggrieved he may challenge the same before the appropriate forum.
6. Consequently, the orders dated 30.09.2022 and 20.12.2022 are hereby quashed and this petition is accordingly disposed of.
Administrative authorities must timely decide on service-related petitions made by their employees, ensuring adherence to procedural fairness.
When parties concur, the court may direct administrative bodies to dispose of pending representations in accordance with applicable government orders without delving into the underlying merits of the....
The court emphasized the importance of following policy guidelines and providing reasoned decisions in matters related to the transfer of CISF personnel.
The court emphasized the importance of timely decision-making by the respondents and consideration of the petitioner's medical condition in reaching a decision.
Courts may decline to interfere with transfer matters made in exigency of service, unless they are mala fide, punitive, or based on extraneous circumstances.
The court emphasized the consideration of humanitarian grounds in decision-making and the need for a reasoned order within a specified timeframe.
The court emphasized the importance of considering the petitioner's representation and making a reasoned decision within a specified timeframe.
The court emphasized that transfer orders should not be interfered with unless they are shown to be vitiated by malafide or made in violation of any statutory provision or issued by an incompetent pe....
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
