Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Suresh Kumar Kait, Neena Bansal Krishna, JJ.
Narendra Singh – Appellant
Versus
Union of India & Ors. – Respondents
W.P.(C) 7943 of 2023 & CM APPL. 30604 of 2023
Decided On : 31-05-2023
Certiorari Mandamus - Repatriation Order - The court directed the respondents to decide the petitioner's case in view of the policy dated 31.01.2013 within two weeks and communicate the decision with a reasoned order within three days thereafter.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner sought relief to quash the Repatriation Order and Movement Order and to place the case for absorption before the Screening Committee/Board of Officers as per the Standard Operating Procedure. Additionally, the petitioner requested permission to discharge the functions as Sub Inspector/Junior Engineer (Electrical) during the pendency of the Writ Petition.
Finding of the Court:
The court directed the respondents to decide the petitioner's case in view of the policy dated 31.01.2013 within two weeks and communicate the decision with a reasoned order within three days thereafter. The petition was disposed of with the mentioned directions.
Issues: The issues involved the petitioner's request to quash the Repatriation Order and Movement Order, placement of the case for absorption, and permission to discharge functions during the pendency of the Writ Petition.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was influenced by the need to ensure the petitioner's case was decided in accordance with the policy dated 31.01.2013 and to provide a reasoned order to the petitioner within a specified timeframe.
Final Decision: The present petition was disposed of with the direction for the respondents to decide the petitioner's case in view of the policy dated 31.01.2013 within two weeks and communicate the decision with a reasoned order within three days thereafter.
JUDGMENT (Oral)
1. Vide this petition, petitioner is seeking following relief(s):
"A. Issue a writ of Certiorari Mandamus or any other Writ or Direction or Order, to call for the records in Repatriation Order no.Estt/Depu/192/54 Bn/2023/6917-26 dated 19.05.2023 and Movement Order no. Estt/1272(150)/54/2023/6941-49 dated 19.05.2023 and quash the same, and in furtherance direct Respondent No.2 to place the case of the Petitioner for absorption before the Screening Committee/Board of Officers as per the Standard Operating Procedure dated 31.01.2013; and
B. Issue Orders to the Respondent No. 2 to permit the Petitioner to discharge the functions as Sub Inspector/Junior Engineer (Electrical) during the pendency of this Writ Petition."
2. After hearing learned counsel for petitioner and in view of averments made in the present petition, we hereby direct respondents to decide the case of petitioner in view of policy dated 31.01.2013 (Annexure P-5) within two weeks. The decision so taken shall be communicated to the petitioner within three days thereafter with a reasoned order.
3. With the aforesaid directions, present petition is disposed of.
4. Pending application stands disposed of.
5. Needless to say, if the petitioner feels aggrieved by the decision of the respondents on his case, he may approach the appropriate forum.
The court emphasized the importance of deciding the petitioner's case in accordance with the policy dated 31.01.2013 and providing a reasoned order within a specified timeframe.
The court emphasized the importance of the respondents deciding on the petitioner's representation within a specified timeframe and communicating the decision with a reasoned order.
The court ruled that repatriation during ongoing litigation violates interim orders, necessitating reinstatement.
An employee on deputation is to be repatriated if the borrowing department opts not to absorb them, but personal circumstances must be considered in determining their subsequent posting.
A deputationist does not have a legally enforceable right to claim absorption through writ jurisdiction.
The court emphasized the importance of timely decision-making by the respondents and consideration of the petitioner's medical condition in reaching a decision.
The court highlights the necessity for administrative bodies to adhere to procedural fairness, ensuring affected parties have an opportunity to be heard.
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
