W.P.(C)/4418/2010 of HC SUKHBIR SINGH Vs UOI AND ORS

*IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+ W.P.(C)No.4418/2010 and CM No.8781/2010

Date of Decision : 13[th] July, 2010

HC SUKHBIR SINGH

..... Petitioner

Through : Mr. Anuj Aggarwal,

Mr. Manika V. Aggarwal and Mr. Gaurav Khanna, Advs. Mr. Gaurav Khanna, Advs.

versus

UOI AND ORS

..... Respondents Through : Dr. Ashwani Bhardwaj, Adv.

CORAM :- HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE GITA MITTAL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE J.R. MIDHA

1.Whether Reporters of Local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment? be allowed to see the Judgment?

2. To be referred to the Reporter or not?

3. Whether the judgment should be NO reported in the Digest? reported in the Digest?

GITA MITTAL, J. (Oral)

1. By this writ petition, the petitioner assails the movement order dated 1[st] July, 2010 whereby he has been required to move from 103 Battalion of the Rapid Action Force presently at Delhi to his parent Battalion which is 127 Battalion Central Reserve Police Force and is currently located at Orissa. The writ petition is premised on the contention that the petitioner had submitted an application for voluntary retirement from his service dated 14[th] June, 2000 which has not been considered by the respondents. The contention is that, pending orders on his request for voluntary retirement, the movement shall work undue hardships to the petitioner. According to the writ

W.P.(C)No.4418/2010 Page 1 of 4

petitioner, the resultant displacement of the petitioner’s family would be unwarranted and consequently he has prayed for quashing of the order of movement in exercise of our extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

2. When the writ petition had come up before us on 7[th] July, 2010, on prima facie consideration of the aforenoted submissions, we had directed that the movement order dated 1[st] July, 2010 to be kept in abeyance. The petitioner has, therefore, continued to remain at Delhi.

3. When the matter was taken up today, Dr. Ashwani Bhardwaj, learned counsel appearing for the respondents had made submission that no application seeking voluntary retirement from service has been received from the petitioner. It is also pointed out that the petitioner was deployed at the Rapid Action Force for fixed tenure of three years which has expired and his continuation at the said deployment is not possible or permissible. Learned counsel also pointed out that the petitioner has in these circumstances been directed to report back to his parent battalion wherefrom he was deployed at Delhi on tenure basis.

4. We have considered the rival contentions. We find that the letter dated 14[th] June, 2000 written by the petitioner seeking voluntary retirement from service was addressed to the Commandant of the 103 Battalion of the Rapid Action Force and not to the petitioner’s appointing authority. The prayer in

W.P.(C)No.4418/2010 Page 2 of 4

this representation is also for verification of the petitioner’s service so as to enable him to apply for voluntary retirement. No representation for permission to voluntarily retire addressed to the petitioner’s appointing authority/competent authority has been placed before this Court. There is therefore force in the submission by learned counsel for the respondents that the petitioner has not made an application in the prescribed format to the competent authority.

5. Be that as it may, the petitioner was deployed with the Rapid Action Force on fixed tenure basis. The petitioner has complained that his movement to join his parent Battalion would cause displacement for his family. Undoubtedly even, if the petitioner was permitted to proceed on voluntary retirement, he would be required to make alternate arrangement for placement of his family. Nothing prevents the petitioner from making such arrangement pending consideration of any request for voluntary retirement which he may make to the respondent. However, the movement/transfer order cannot be interdicted or assailed for this reason in the given facts. We, therefore, find no merits in the plea raised by the petitioner.

6. In view of the above, this writ petition and application are dismissed.

7. We however give liberty to the petitioner to submit an application as per the applicable rules and regulations to the Competent Authority. Needless to say, as and when such

W.P.(C)No.4418/2010 Page 3 of 4

application is made, the respondents shall consider the same expeditiously and communicate the order thereof to the petitioner.

8. Dasti.

GITA MITTAL, J

JULY 13, 2010 mk

J.R. MIDHA, J

W.P.(C)No.4418/2010 Page 4 of 4