Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Rajiv Sahai Endlaw, Amit Bansal, JJ.
Laxman Singh Rawat - Appellant
Versus
Union of India - Respondent
W.P.(C) 6206 of 2021
Decided On : 07-07-2021
ORDER
[VIA VIDEO CONFERENCING]
C.M. No. 19661/2021 (for exemption)
1. Allowed, subject to just exceptions and as per extant rules.
2. The application is disposed of.
W.P.(C) 6206/2021 & C.M. No. 19660/2021 (for interim directions)
3. This is yet another case, of a personnel of the Defence Forces, once posted at Delhi, adopting legal means to perpetuate his stay at Delhi and refusing to take up another posting.
4. The petitioner is an Inspector (Motor Transport) in the respondents Indo-Tibetan Border Police (ITBP). He has been posted at Delhi since 20th January, 2015, i.e., now for nearly 61/2 years. Yet, when he has been transferred to Lucknow, Uttar Pradesh, he opposes the same citing his medical condition and the factum of his daughter studying in Class X.
5. As per the averments of the petitioner, the petitioner, on 13th August, 2015 underwent a kidney transplant and is under follow up thereof at Max Hospital and cites the same as one of the reasons for wanting to continue at Delhi.
6. Lucknow is not only a State capital but even otherwise has as good medical facilities as at Delhi. Rather, when we asked the counsel for the petitioner, whether not there is a Max Hospital at Lucknow also, the counsel for the petitioner states that it has not been verified. The same shows, how medical grounds have been urged, without even verifying facts and without there being any basis therefor.
7. The petitioner now, after his transplant, has been in Delhi for more than 6 years and we see no reason to interfere with the transfer order, which is an exigency of service, on medical grounds.
8. As far as the ground urged by the petitioner, of the education of his daughter at Delhi is concerned, as per the education curriculum, after Class X, there is, in any case, a re-admission in Class XI and we thus do not see any reason why the petitioner, if desires his daughter to continue residing with him, cannot admit his daughter to a school at Lucknow, to commence her Class XI education.
9. Yet another ground urged, is of the impending retirement of the petitioner in December, 2022.
10. We have enquired the hometown of the petitioner.
11. The counsel for the petitioner states that the petitioner belongs to Uttarakhand.
12. The petitioner, by his posting at Lucknow, is going closer to his hometown or to his erstwhile State and thus no interference on this ground either is called for.
13. The counsel for the petitioner has drawn our attention to Clause 7 titled "Terminal Posting" of the Standing Order No. 02/2020 dated 15th October, 2020 issued by the Directorate General, ITBP on the subject of "General Guidelines for Posting/Transfer of ITBP Personnel".
14. However, the said Clause 7 also does not lay down any hard and fast rule and is subject to operational demands and administrative feasibility. The petitioner thereunder is entitled to give a choice of 5 Units and the petitioner does not even claim to have exercised his right therein.
15. We have in Shyam Sunder Tiwari Vs. Union of India, MANU/DE/1417/2020 (DB) [SLP(C) No. 12022-12023/2020 preferred whereagainst was dismissed on 18th November, 2020], judgment dated 15th July, 2020 in W.P. (C) No. 3625/2020 titled Rachpal Singh Vs. Union of India, [SLP(C) No. 8923/2020 preferred whereagainst was dismissed on 14th August, 2020], Kiran Pooja Vs. Union of India, MANU/DE/1715/2020 and judgment dated 19th April, 2021 in W.P. (C) No. 4788/2021 titled Meena Matai Vs. Union of India, noticed that interference by the Court on sympathetic grounds urged by one personnel in such cases is always at the cost and to the prejudice of another personnel who is wanting to be posted in Delhi and has to be necessarily denied the said posting owing to the personnel already posted at Delhi adopting all means to avoid being posted out of Delhi.
16. Thus, this Court cannot be sympathetic to the petitioner without the others who may also be deserving of the same sympathy, being before it.
17.
The court ruled that operational demands of service outweigh personal circumstances in transfer matters of defence personnel, denying requests for sympathetic intervention without verified claims.
The court ruled that exercising discretion for compassionate postings may unjustly disadvantage others seeking similar accommodations, reinforcing the need for equitable treatment in transfer matters....
Judicial review of administrative transfers is limited; courts uphold orders unless clear legal violations are evident.
Government employees do not have a vested right to their posting location; transfers are within employer discretion to maintain administrative balance.
Transfer and posting decisions in a disciplined force are made by the competent authority in the interest of the Force, and individual requests for specific locations may not be entertained.
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.
Government employees have no vested right to remain posted at a preferred location; transfers based on administrative exigencies are permissible unless statutory violations occur.
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
