Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Suresh Kumar Kait, Neena Bansal Krishna, JJ.
Kulwant Raj – Appellant
Versus
Director General Central Industrial Security Force & Ors. – Respondents
W.P.(C) 5821 of 2023 and CM APPL. 22834 of 2023
Decided On : 04-05-2023
Exemption - Transfer of Petitioner - The court allowed the application for exemption and directed the applicant to file legible copies of documents within four weeks.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner sought relief to be retained at a specific CISF unit and to quash transfer orders. The petitioner made a presentation, but there was no communication from the other side.
Finding of the Court:
The court directed the respondents to dispose of the representation by a certain date and communicate the decision to the petitioner. The petitioner was given the option to challenge the decision before the appropriate forum.
Issues: Transfer of petitioner, communication from respondents, disposal of representation, petitioner's grievance
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the need for the respondents to communicate the decision on the petitioner's representation and provided the petitioner with the option to challenge the decision if aggrieved.
Final Decision: The petition was disposed of, and any pending application was also disposed of.
JUDGMENT (Oral)
CM APPL.22835/2023 (exemption)
1. The application is allowed, with a direction to the applicant to file requisite legible copies of documents and annexures within four weeks.
2. The application is accordingly disposed of.
W.P.(C) 5821/2023
3. The petitioner in his present petition has made following prayers:
a) To direct the respondents, DG CISF, New Delhi, to retain the petitioner at any CISF units of North Sector only at his fourth service tenure in terms of circular dated 25.09.2017.
b) To quash the orders, qua petitioner dated 24.03.2023, and consequential order dated 14.04.2023 wherein petitioner has been transferred from the present unit of IGI Airport New Delhi to ONGC DAHEJ, Gujarat or in the alternative.
c) To direct the respondents to defer the posting of the petitioner for at least a period of one year.
d) To direct the respondents to pay cost of this litigation to the petitioner.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that qua the relief sought in the present petition, the petitioner made a presentation dated 30.03.2023. However, till date there is no communication from the other side.
5. Learned counsel for the respondents had assured this court that the representation shall be disposed of on or before 25.05.2023.
6. The decision so taken shall be communicated to the petitioner within three days thereafter.
7. If the petitioner still feels aggrieved by the decision so made then he may challenge the same before the appropriate forum.
8. The petition is accordingly disposed of. Pending application, if any, also stands disposed of.
The court emphasized the importance of communication from the respondents and provided the petitioner with the option to challenge the decision if aggrieved.
The court emphasized the importance of passing a reasoned order on the petitioner's representation and providing specific relief to the petitioner.
The court emphasized the importance of a reasoned order and specified a timeframe for communicating the decision on the petitioner's representation.
The court emphasized the duty of authorities to decide pending representations in a timely manner, confirming jurisdiction to compel action under Article 226.
Timely decision on representations and communication of reasoned orders by the respondents.
The court emphasized the importance of the respondents deciding the petitioner's representation and communicating the decision with a reasoned order, in line with the petitioner's request for retenti....
Authorities must decide representations timely and fairly, adhering to principles of administrative justice.
The court emphasized the importance of timely decision-making on the petitioner's representation and the stay of any movement order until the representation is decided.
The court emphasized the importance of the respondent deciding the petitioner's representation and communicating the decision with a reasoned order.
Transfer orders can be deferred by the court to uphold fairness when a valid claim is presented by the affected employee.
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
