WP(C)No.2910/2011 Page 1 of 7

*

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

%

Date of Decision: 31^st May, 2011

+

W.P.(C) 2910/2011

VINEET MEHTA

..... Petitioner

Through: Ms.Ritu Bhardwaj, Advocate

versus

UOI AND ORS.

.....Respondents

Through: Mr.Ravinder Aggarwal, Advocate

with Mr. Lt.Col. Manish Kumar

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP NANDRAJOG

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESH KAIT

1.Whether the Reporters of local papers may be allowed

to see the judgment?

2.To be referred to Reporter or not?

3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?

PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J.

1.

Petitioner claims that after serving in Kupwara (J & K) he

came on a normal posting to Delhi and that this was the first

posting in Delhi after petitioner put in 14½ years’ service.

2.

As per the petitioner his wife could not conceive due to

some medical problems and for which IVF treatment was

undertaken and that on medical grounds he was retained at

Delhi after 2 years posting at Delhi came to an end.

3.

Though the dates have not been mentioned in the writ

petition we note that the petitioner came by way of transfer to

Delhi in December 2007 and completed 2 years’ tenure in

December 2009.

4.

Petitioner claimed that on medical grounds so that IVF

2011:DHC:3051-DB

WP(C)No.2910/2011 Page 2 of 7

treatment could be undertaken to enable his wife to conceive,

he was granted extension of tenure in Delhi on medical grounds

for one year and which we note would come to an end by

December 2010. Petitioner claims that he is entitled to the

benefit of the transfer posting policy as per which, on

compassionate grounds, he would be entitled to stay at Delhi for

a further period of 2 years and compassion is sought on the

ground that his wife gave birth to twins who were pre-mature

and that his presence at Delhi to be with his wife is his

necessity.

5.

Petitioner urges discrimination and hostile treatment

and for which petitioner states that just to harass him,

notwithstanding he being granted one year tenure extension on

medical grounds requiring him to be posted at Delhi till the end

of the year 2010, transfer posting orders were issued on

11.1.2010, 12.4.2010, 14.4.2010, 16.9.2010 and 22.9.2010

which we note are on pages 23, 29, 35 and 36 of the writ

petition.

6.

As per the counter affidavit filed the petitioner is not

entitled to any extension of service in Delhi on account of the

fact that posting at Delhi is sought by virtually each and every

officer and that the transfer posting policy dated 27.1.2009

(Annexure R-1) prohibits any tenure at Delhi for a period of more

than 2 years with respect to 151 appointments. Relevant would

it be to note that appointment of the petitioner at Delhi is a post

at Sl.No.67 of the transfer posting policy pertaining to Delhi

dated 27.1.20009.

7.

As per the respondents the petitioner has been

accommodated enough and that has whetted his appetite.

Respondents allege that the petitioner himself desired an

2011:DHC:3051-DB

WP(C)No.2910/2011 Page 3 of 7

extension for a period of 4 months in December 2010 and thus

they extended his tenure at Delhi till 20.4.2011 and that now

the petitioner cannot claim anything more.

8.

With respect to the grievance of the petitioner that he

has been posted to Tenga a place where his wife cannot

accompany him, keeping in view the fact that pre-matured

babies were born to the wife of the petitioner, respondents state

they gave an option to the petitioner to opt for a transfer in a

non-metropolitan city i.e. a Class B-1 city which the petitioner

declined vide lette