Allowed

Roopi Singh v. Union of India and Ors.

Delhi HC15 Nov 2016W.P.(C)/10170/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Delhi rejected the transfer petition of a Border Security Force constable who sought exemption from posting to a hilly area due to past and recent hip injuries. The court held that transfer is not indefinitely resistable and ordered his transfer to Jammu with time for joining and medical leave.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner to join the new post in Jammu by 31.12.2016 with necessary medical leave and facilities provided.

Roopi Singh Vs Union of India and Ors. — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Delhi HC (2016)

¶1

$~10

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

W.P.(C) 10170/2016 ROOPI SINGH ..... Petitioner Through Mr. Satish Chand Gupta & Ms. Swati, Advocates.

¶4

versus

¶5

UNION OF INDIA AND ORS ..... Respondents Through Mr. Akshay Makhija, CGSC along with Mr. Shivi Sanyam & Mr. Sumant Bhushan, Advocates & Mr. Arvind Sharma (DC-2AW) BSF for UOI.

¶6

CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE INDIRA BANERJEE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHAWLA

¶7

O R D E R % 15.11.2016

¶8

This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner, a constable of the Border Security Force presently posted in the 25^th Battalion BSF, Chhawla Camp, Najafgarh, Delhi questioning an order of transfer.

¶9

According to the petitioner, while he was posted in the 137^th Battalion BSF in West Bengal, he suffered a fall, as a result of which, his left hip bone was fractured. This happened in March, 1997. In June 1997, 137^th Battalion of the Border Security Force moved to Jammu and Kashmir. According to the petitioner, he was referred to the BSF Base Hospital in Srinagar W.P.(C) 10170/2016 page 1 of 3

¶10

from where he was again referred to the Army Hospital (92 Base Hospital at Srinagar).

¶11

Thereafter, the petitioner was referred by the 92 Base Hospital, Srinagar to Delhi. The petitioner was granted leave and was operated in June, 1998 at the Lok Nayak Jai Prakash Narayan Hospital. According to the petitioner, the doctor who performed the operation advised the petitioner to go through the yearly check-up. It is pleaded that the doctor advised “considering the problem of the patient, it is not advisable for the patient to work at hill areas and on uneven grounds patient is not fit for prolonged walking, heavy weight lifting or unstaring. The patient can perform only light duties and indoor official works rather than heavy duty of field work”.

¶12

This advice was given about 16-17 years ago at the time when the petitioner underwent the operation and/or while he was under post-operative care. The petitioner was posted to Delhi in June, 2010 in the 25^th Battalion, Chhawla Camp, Najafgarh, New Delhi, at his own request. According to the petitioner, he has been under the treatment at the Lok Nayak Jai Prakash Narayan Hospital, New Delhi since 2010. The petitioner apparently underwent a hip replacement surgery in April, 2016. Seven months have lapsed since the petitioner underwent the hip replacement surgery.

¶13

There can be no dispute that the petitioner is in transferable service. Transfer cannot indefinitely be resisted on the ground of health problems. The petitioner is eligible for voluntary retirement. If he so chooses, he might apply for voluntary retirement.

¶14

Pursuant to the directions of this Court, the representation of the petitioner was considered and the same has been rejected by a reasoned W.P.(C) 10170/2016 page 2 of 3

¶15

order dated 15.11.2016. A copy of the order has been made over in Court and the same may be taken on record.

¶16

It appears that it has been decided to transfer the petitioner to Jammu where adequate health care facilities are available. Needless to mention that the petitioner shall be provided with all necessary health care facilities and in case of requirement, he shall also be granted medical leave and such other leave as might be admissible to him, to enable him to pursue, if required, follow-up treatment at the Lok Nayak Jai Prakash Narayan Hospital, where he is presently undergoing treatment.

¶17

The respondent authorities shall grant the petitioner a little time to join the post to which he has been transferred, considering his medical condition. The petitioner shall positively join the post to which he is transferred within 31.12.2016.

¶18

The writ petition is disposed of accordingly.

¶19

CM No. 40207/2016 (stay)

¶20

Dismissed as infructuous.

¶21

INDIRA BANERJEE, J

¶22

ANIL KUMAR CHAWLA, J

¶23

NOVEMBER 15, 2016 rs

¶24

W.P.(C) 10170/2016

¶25

page 3 of 3

Roopi Singh v. Union of India and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Roopi Singh v. Union of India and Ors.

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

Union of India & Ors. Vs Ved Prakash Gupta

Mohinder Kumar V.M. Vs UOI & Ors.

B.L. Jain & Ors. Vs UOI & Ors.

Pinnacle Prints Pvt. Ltd. Vs the Union of India & Ors.

Rajbir Singh Vs UOI & Ors.

Viown Mettube Pvt. Ltd. Vs Commissioner,Trade & Taxes, & Anr.

Vijai Prakash Agrawal Vs Union of India & Anr.

Subhash Chandra Vs Punjab Natiional Bank and Ors.

Pinnacle Prints Pvt. Ltd. Vs the Union of India & Ors.

Manoj Kumar Vs Union of India and Ors.

Ravinder Kumar Wali Vs Union of India

M/S v & K Associates Vs Union of India & Ors.

Rambabu Bantumilli Vs Union of India and Ors.

Zakaria Ahmed Vs Union of India & Ors.