SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img



IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Sanjeev Sachdeva, Tushar Rao Gedela, JJ.
Abhishek Sinha - Appellant
Versus
Union of India - Respondent
W.P.(C) 15053 of 2022 & CM Appl. 46496 of 2022
Decided On : 09-11-2022




Court ruled in favor of flexible administrative decisions in employment law to ensure educational continuity for children, allowing retention of accommodation amid transfer.

Headnote:(A) Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965 - Transfer orders - Dismissal of petition seeking to challenge transfer orders and related representations - Court accepted the respondent's offer to retain accommodation in Pune for six months while accommodating the petitioner in a Guest House in Delhi. (Paras 3, 5)

(B) Employment law - Circumstances warranting compassionate consideration examined - The court outlines that the petitioner's child's education should not be disturbed, reflecting the need for flexibility in administrative decisions. (Paras 2, 5)

Facts of the case:
The petitioner sought to retain official accommodation in Pune due to his child's educational commitments and challenged the order of transfer asserting difficulties in relocation mid-session.

Findings of Court:
The court determined that the petitioner could retain accommodation in Pune for six months and clarified that the period of absence would not be unauthorized but adjusted towards eligible leave.

Issues: The primary question was whether the petitioner could keep accommodation due to his child's education and the treatment of the absence period.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that educational continuity for the petitioner's child was significant enough to allow flexibility in the application of transfer orders and address the unauthorized absence classification.

Result: Petition disposed of with directions.

Table of Content
1. petitioner challenges order of transfer and related decisions. (Para 1)
2. petitioner requests for accommodation due to child's education. (Para 2)
3. respondents offer temporary accommodation in pune. (Para 3)
4. court accepts the respondents' offer for accommodation. (Para 5)
5. court clarifies treatment of absence and precedential value. (Para 6 , 7)
6. petition disposed of with order. (Para 8 , 9)

JUDGMENT

Sanjeev Sachdeva, J. (ORAL)

1. Petitioner impugns order dated 06.10.2022 whereby the Original Application (`OA') filed by the petitioner, impugning the order of transfer dated 09.06.2022; and rejection of his representation by order dated 03.08.2022 and the relieving order dated 12.08.2022, was dismissed.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the son of the petitioner is studying in Pune in ICSE Board and it is not possible for him to secure an admission in the said Board in Delhi in mid-session. He submits that the session is likely to end on 31.03.2023 and he prays that the Department may sympathetically consider his case and consider permitting him to retain the official accommodation in Pune till the end of the session of the child, so that the education of the child is not disturbed and may also consider granting him some accommodation in Delhi, where he is posted.

3. Learned counsel for the respondents under instructions submits that as an exceptional case respondents have agreed to permit the petitioner to retain the accommodation in Pune for a period of six months on normal rent and shall also permit the petitioner to stay in the Guest House of the Department of Water Resources at Ber Sarai, Delhi, for the said period as well, without charging any damage rent from the petitioner.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner has been issued a communication that the period w.e.f. 18.08.2022 till the date of his joining in Delhi shall be treated as a period of unauthorized absence.

5. Keeping in view the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case and without treating the same as a precedent, the offer of the respondents is accepted. Respondents shall permit the petitioner to continue to occupy the accommodation at Pune for a period six months from today and also permit him to stay in the Guest House of the Department of Water Resources at Ber Sarai, Delhi on normal rent.

6. The period between 18.08.2022 till the date of joining shall not be treated as period of unauthorized absence, however, the same shall be adjusted towards the admissible leave of the petitioner in accordance with the rules. Petitioner shall join the place of posting at Delhi within one week from today.

7. It is clarified that this order has been passed in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case and without treating the same as a precedent. All rights and contentions of the parties are reserved.

8. The petition is disposed of in the above terms.

9. Order Dasti under the signature of the Court Master.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top