Disposed

Ashok Kumar Sirohi v. Union of India & Ors.

Delhi HC12 Feb 2016W.P.(C)/907/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner, a BSF Constable, challenged an order transferring him to Rajasthan after he had been posted in Delhi for less than four years. The Court held that reasons for revoking the Delhi posting should have been provided. It directed the respondents to decide the petitioner's representation within two weeks via a speaking order and refrain from coercive action during that period.

What did the court decide?

Directions to decide representation by speaking order within two weeks and restrain coercive action for two weeks.

Ashok Kumar Sirohi Vs Union of India & Ors. — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Delhi HC (2016)

¶1

$~18

¶2

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

- W.P.(C) 907/2016 & C.M.3959/2016

¶4

ASHOK KUMAR SIROHI ..... Petitioner Through: Ms. Saahila Lamba, Advocate

¶5

versus

¶6

UNION OF INDIA & ORS .....Respondents Through: Mrs. Abha Malhotra, Advocate

¶7

CORAM:

¶8

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

¶9

¶10

O R D E R 12.02.2016

¶11

The petitioner is aggrieved by the Movement Order dated 13^th January, 2016, issued by the respondent-BSF calling up him to move to his place of posting at Dabla, Rajasthan.

¶12

Learned counsel for the petitioner states that the petitioner

¶13

was recruited as a Constable in the respondent-BSF on 22^nd December, 1997 and during the course of his service, spanning over 18 years, he was posted at several places, which were hardship areas. In the year 2015, the petitioner had submitted an application to the respondent requesting that he may be posted at Delhi to enable him to attend to his ailing mother.

¶14

Page 1 of 3

¶15

W.P.(C) 907/2016

¶16

The said request was acceded to by the respondents vide order dated 11^th May, 2015 and a Movement Order dated 24^th May, 2015, was issued transferring the petitioner to Delhi.

¶17

In less than eight months, the petitioner has received a Movement Order dated 15^th January, 2016 requiring him to report for duty immediately at 194^th Bn BSF at Rajasthan. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner had submitted a representation to the respondents (Annexure P-6) stating inter alia that he had not even completed the posting period of four years at Delhi. The grievance of the petitioner is that the respondents have failed to reply to the said representation. Presently, the petitioner is stated to be on leave upto 15^th February, 2016.

¶18

Learned counsel for the respondents, who appears on advance notice, states on instructions that there are valid reasons for the respondents to have issued the impugned Movement Order dated 15^th January, 2016. She however, concedes that the same have not been communicated to the petitioner at the time of passing of the said order.

¶19

In view of the fact that it was on a written representation made by the petitioner that the respondents had transferred him to Delhi in May, 2015, we are of the opinion that if the respondents

¶20

Page 2 of 3

¶21

W.P.(C) 907/2016

¶22

were of the opinion that the petitioner did not deserve to remain in Delhi, then the reasons therefor ought to have been provided to him.

¶23

The present petition is accordingly disposed of with directions to the respondents to decide the petitioner’s representation by considering all the pleas taken by him therein and pass a speaking order under written intimation to him. Needful shall be done within two weeks from today. The respondents shall not take any coercive action against the petitioner for a period of two weeks reckoned from today. If the petitioner is aggrieved by the decision of the respondents, he shall be entitled to seek his legal remedies as per law.

¶24

The present petition is disposed of along with pending application.

¶25

A copy of this order be given dasti under signatures to learned counsel for the respondents.

¶26

HIMA KOHLI, J

¶27

SUNIL GAUR, J

¶28

FEBRUARY 12, 2016 s

¶29

Page 3 of 3

¶30

W.P.(C) 907/2016

Ashok Kumar Sirohi v. Union of India & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ashok Kumar Sirohi 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

R.K. Anand & Ors. Vs Govt. of NCT of Delhi and Ors.

Ajit Kumar Singh Vs UOI and Ors.

Pegasus Assets Reconstruction Vs M/S Parasrampuria Synthetics Ltd. & Ors.

M/S Krishan & Co. Vs UOI & Ors.

Pushpanjali Farm Owners and Residents Welfare Association, Bijwasan Vs Municipal Corporation of Delhi (South) & Ors.

Moti Kumari Vs Secretary General, Supreme Court of India

Abhishek Prakash Vs State Govt. of NCT Delhi, India & Anr.

Mustajab Ali Vs North Delhi Municipal Corporation & Ors.

Ajit Kumar Singh Vs UOI and Ors.

Amar Pal Singh Vs Union of India and Ors.

Neeraj Katyal & Ors. Vs State & Ors.

Mohan Lal Vs Union of India & Anr.

Hc Rajesh Kumar Vs UOI & Nar