Dismissed

S.I. (M). R.N. Kulhari v. Union of India & Ors.

Delhi HC4 May 2016W.P.(C)/3187/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner sought writ stay against an order refusing his request for a Rajasthan posting. Court rejected petition as petitioner had exceeded normal tenure in Home Zone and still had future opportunities for sector-wise posting.

What did the court decide?

Set aside of order dated 22nd March, 2016 refusing Rajasthan sector posting and direction to allot Rajasthan sector dismissed.

S.I. (M). R.N. Kulhari Vs Union of India & Ors. — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Delhi HC (2016)

¶1

$~4

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

- W.P.(C) 3187/2016

¶4

S.I. (M). R.N. KULHARI ..... Petitioner Through: Mr. Kunwar Anish Ali, Advocate

¶5

versus

¶6

UNION OF INDIA & ORS. ..... Respondents Through: Mr. P.C. Yadav, CGSC & Mr. Santosh Kumar Pandey, Advocate

¶7

CORAM:

¶8

HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE HIMA KOHLI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR

¶9

O R D E R % 04.05.2016

¶10

The present petition has been filed by the petitioner praying inter alia for quashing the Office Order dated 15^th February, 2016, issued by the respondent- CRPF and further for directing the respondents to allot him Rajasthan Sector.

¶11

Learned counsel for the petitioner states that the petitioner had joined the CRPF as a Constable (GD) in the year 1990 and on promotion was transferred to Avanthipura, Srinagar on 15^th September, 2012 and had remained posted there till 20^th February, 2015. Thereafter, vide order dated 20^th February, 2015, the petitioner was transferred to Ananthnag, Srinagar for a period of six months which had expired on 5^th November, 2015 but he remained posted there even thereafter. It is submitted that owing to his family problems, the petitioner had requested the

¶12

Page 1 of 3

¶13

W.P.(C) 3187/2016

¶14

respondents to post him at Rajasthan, his native place where his family resides but the said request was turned down by the respondents vide Signal dated 15^th February, 2016, and the petitioner has been allotted Central Zone as his next place of posting at Lucknow, U.P..

¶15

The grievance of the petitioner is that vide order dated 22^nd March, 2016, the respondents have turned down his representation on the ground that he has already completed his Zonal tenure in Jammu & Kashmir and he was ineligible for being posted at Rajasthan based office. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that vide Signal dated 15^th October, 2015, the respondents had informed the petitioner that his transfer case shall be considered / reviewed during the Summer Transfer 2016 but without taking into consideration the fact that he had not yet completed 18 years in the Northern Zone, he has been summarily transferred in terms of the order dated 22^nd March, 2016, to Lucknow, U.P., that falls in the Central Zone.

¶16

On the last date of hearing, learned counsel for the respondents had sought time to obtain instructions from the department as to whether prior hereto, the petitioner had requested the respondents for a choice posting and if so, whether he had been accommodated in the past twenty five years of service.

¶17

Learned counsel for the respondents states on instructions that the petitioner has already availed his posting in his home sector namely Northern Zone as well as Home Zone i.e. Jammu & Kashmir for far more than the prescribed period, which includes his posting at Delhi/ NCR based offices between 5^th September, 2000 to 8^th September, 2006, spreading over a period of six years and at Noida between 4^th July, 2008

¶18

Page 2 of 3

¶19

W.P.(C) 3187/2016

¶20

to 14^th November, 2012, spreading over four years and four months, as against the prescribed normal tenure of three years. It is clarified by the respondents’ counsel that in totality, the petitioner has been availing postings at the Home Zone for the past 19.3 years, as against the prescribed tenure of 18 years. It is in this background that the petitioner’s request for being posted at Rajasthan sector has been turned down.

¶21

In view of the fact that out of twenty five years of service rendered by him, the petitioner has remained in the Home Zone, i.e. Jammu & Kashmir for over 19 years and still has atleast eight years of service left to render which would offer more opportunities for him to seek a posting in the Rajasthan sector in the future, we are not inclined to interfere in the impugned order dated 22^nd March, 2016.

¶22

The petition is dismissed.

HIMA KOHLI, J

SUNIL GAUR, J

MAY 04, 2016

Page 3 of 3

W.P.(C) 3187/2016

S.I. (M). R.N. Kulhari v. Union of India & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

S.I. (M). R.N. Kulhari v. Union of India & 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

K.S.Traders Vs Union of India & Ors.

Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited Vs Union of India & Ors.

Mangali Impex Ltd. Vs Union of India and Ors.

D.P. Sharma Vs M/S Bses Rajdhani Power Limited

M/S Rathore Fair Price Shop Vs Government of NCT of Delhi & Ors.

Greatship (India) Ltd. Vs Union of India & Ors.

Syndicate Bank Vs Anand Prasad & Anr.

Kiran Jain & Ors. Vs North Delhi Municipal Corporation and Ors.

Renu Kumari Vs Union of India and Anr.

Chandan Kumar Vs Union of India & Anr.

Rituja Neog Vs Union of India and Anr.

Jai Pal Vs UOI and Ors.

Subhas Chandra Sarkar Vs Union of India & Anr.

Constable Veer Singh Vs Union of India & Anr.