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
Suresh Kumar Kait, Saurabh Banerjee, JJ.
Ranjeet - Appellant
Versus
Union of India - Respondent
W.P.(C) 16074 of 2022 & CM Appls. 50175-50176 of 2022
Decided On : 22-11-2022




Transfer orders may be deferred based on personal health circumstances but should have a defined time limit for extensions.

Headnote:(A) Constitution of India - Article 226 - Writ Petition for quashing transfer orders - Petitioner seeks to defer transfer due to wife's medical conditions, including multiple surgeries and miscarriages. Respondents argue that medical facilities are similar in the new location - Court directs extension of tenure for three months, emphasizing the health of the petitioner’s wife. (Paras 2, 3, 5)

(B) Administrative Law - Transfer of Employees - Courts can consider personal circumstances in cases involving transfer orders - However, extensions are not to be granted indefinitely. (Paras 4, 5)

Facts of the case:
The petitioner challenges transfer orders from Delhi to Tripura citing the health issues of his wife, who has undergone several surgeries and miscarriages.

Findings of Court:
The court allows an extension of three months for the petitioner to make arrangements regarding his wife's health, denying any further extensions.

Issues: Whether the transfer orders should be deferred considering the wife's ongoing medical issues.

Ratio Decidendi: The court considered the personal circumstances of the petitioner but set a firm limit on the duration for which the tenure could be extended, underscoring the need for reasonable administrative practices.

Result: Petition allowed to the extent of extending tenure by three months.

Table of Content
1. petitioner seeks to quash transfer orders due to wife's medical condition. (Para 1 , 1 , 2)
2. respondents argue against petitioner's request citing terms of employment. (Para 3 , 4)
3. court grants extension based on medical circumstances. (Para 5)

JUDGMENT (Oral)

1. By way of present petition, petitioner seeks the following reliefs:

    a) Quash the HQ DG BSF Signal No.R/3127 dated 06.06.2022, order No.1111-C/Pers (P&T)-II/SDG (EC)/MS/2022/3052-3167 dated 15.06.2022 and order No. IGA/Estt-II/P&T-HC/Min/2022/5155-5551 dated 24.06.2022;

    b) Quash the rejection Signal No.115306/IG/DIG dated 10.11.2022 rejecting the representation of the Petitioner;

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the wife of the petitioner was diagnosed with "Ear Discharge with Decreased Hearing" in 2014 for which she is still undergoing medication and has also already undergone three surgeries. He further submits that she also suffers from Thyrotoxicosis and due to this problem of thyroid, she has suffered four miscarriages, the last one being on 16.11.2022. He thus prays that the transfer orders of the petitioner from Delhi to Tripura be deferred.

3. Mr. Tanveer Ahmed Ansari, learned counsel for the respondents appearing on advance notice, on the other hand submits that the petitioner is already on extended tenure which is about to expire on 06.12.2022 and further submits that similar medical facilities are available in Tripura as are available in Delhi. Thus, the present petition deserves to be dismissed.

4. At this stage, learned counsel for petitioner after interacting with the petitioner who is present in Court, requests that further six months time be extended so that the petitioner can make appropriate arrangements qua the health condition of his wife.

5. Keeping in view the above averments, and the fact that the wife of petitioner has already undergone three surgeries for "Ear Discharge with Decreased Hearing" coupled with four miscarriages and the fact that similar medical facilities and medications for the treatment of "Ear Discharge with Decreased Hearing" are available in Tripura, we hereby dispose of the present petition alongwith pending applications, directing the respondents to extend the tenure of the petitioner further by three months from 06.12.2022 for his reporting at Tripura. It is clarified that the petitioner will not be granted any further extensions.

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