Allowed

Vinod Kumar v. State Trading Corporation of India Ltd.

Delhi HC5 Feb 2016W.P.(C)/1005/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner challenged a transfer order from Delhi to Bombay. The respondent offered concessions allowing leave to attend to his son's exam needs and to report back to Delhi on assignment. The Court, finding the suggestion eminently fair, allowed the exemption subject to agreed terms and bound both parties forthwith.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner allowed an exemption to be posted in Delhi on assignment to attend to his son's needs, subject to reporting to Bombay duty within one week.

Vinod Kumar Vs State Trading Corporation of India Ltd. — Service and Employment | Delhi HC (2016)

¶1

$~46

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

W.P.(C) 1005/2016 VINOD KUMAR ..... Petitioner Through Ms. Swati Sukumar, Anu, S. Banerji, Advocates.

¶4

versus

¶5

STATE TRADING CORPORATION OF INDIA LTD.

¶6

..... Respondent Through Mr. S. B. Upadhyay, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Surabh Tuteja and T. Nath, Advocates

¶7

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDERSHAN KUMAR MISRA

¶8

O R D E R % 05.02.2016

¶9

CM Appln. No.4392/2016

¶10

Exemption, as prayed for, is allowed, subject to all just exceptions.

¶11

This application is disposed off.

¶12

WP(C) No.1005/2016 & CM Appln. Nos.4390-91/2016

¶13

The petitioner impugns the transfer order dated 22.12.2015 transferring the petitioner from Delhi to Bombay issued by the respondent.

¶14

Admittedly, since the terms of employment do envisage transfers in the exigencies of service, and in terms of the relevant rules and regulations; counsel for the petitioner, inter alia , claims to have expressed a desire to be permitted to attend to his minor son who is currently in 12^th Class and is expected to sit for the Higher Secondary examinations which are scheduled to conclude in the last week of March 2016. He, of course, also wishes to be able to attend his son’s needs thereafter.

¶15

Counsel for the respondent, who appears on advance notice, states, on

¶16

WP(C) No.1005/2016

¶17

Page 1

¶18

instructions, that without admitting any of the allegations that have been made against his client, either in fact or in law; and without prejudice to any stand that may have been taken by the respondent on these aspects of the matter in case they were called upon to enter the traverse; the respondent is prepared to ensure that the petitioner shall be summoned on assignment to Delhi and be permitted to remain in Delhi on assignment till 14.04.2016; within one week from the date he reports at his place of posting. He further states that with a view to minimizing the controversy, it would be open to the petitioner to apply for leave for the period after the date on which he was relieved from Delhi till the date he joins at his place of posting at Bombay, which will be duly granted to him. And that all these concessions are being given subject to the petitioner reporting for duty at his place of posting at Bombay within one week from today. The petitioner would be obliged to report for duty at Bombay within one week and thereafter to report back to Bombay on 15.04.2016 after completion of his assignment period at Delhi; and in case he fails to do so, it would open to the respondent to initiate disciplinary proceedings as per law.

¶19

In the opinion of the Court also, such a suggestion is eminently fair.

¶20

With the consent of both parties, it is further directed that the transfer order shall bind the petitioner; and that the aforesaid terms shall also be binding on both parties.

¶21

It is further made clear that this order is not to be treated as a precedent, and is limited to the petitioner alone. It is also made clear that the merits of the matter have not been examined one way or the other and no WP(C) No.1005/2016 Page 2

¶22

prejudice shall be caused to either party by this order. However, in case the petitioner is entitled to any other relief regarding transfers and posting etc. under relevant and applicable rules and regulations which govern his employment, it would be open to the petitioner to take appropriate steps in that regard in future also.

¶23

The petition, along with pending applications, is disposed off in the above terms.

¶24

A copy of this order be given dasti to counsel for the parties under the signatures of the Court Master.

¶25

SUDERSHAN KUMAR MISRA, J

¶26

FEBRUARY 05, 2016

¶27

¶28

WP(C) No.1005/2016

¶29

Page 3

Vinod Kumar v. State Trading Corporation of India Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vinod Kumar v. State Trading Corporation of India Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Vinesh Singh Vs Govt. of NCT of Delhi and Ors.

Talha Abdul Rahman Vs University Grants Commissions & Ors.

Delhi Kerosene Storage Association Vs Union of India and Ors.

Balasaheb Tanhaji Thopate Vs Union of India

Maya Devi Vs Government of NCT of Delhi & Ors.

Jamilur Rahman Ansari Vs Guru Gobind Singh Indraprastha University

Aurobindo Pharma Ltd. Vs Union of India & Ors.

Phuntsok Wangyal Vs Ministry of External Affairs & Anr.

Indra Mehta Vs Director of Education & Anr.

Syndicate Bank Vs Suresh Kumar Chaturvedi

N L Vaish Vs Shroff'S Charity Eye Hospital

M/S Isherdas Sahni and Bros Vs New Delhi Municipal Council and Anr.

Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd. Vs T F C Logistics Pvt. Ltd.

In the Matter of Sapphire Management Consultants Private Limited Vs ....