Disposed

Mustaq Ahmad Ansari v. Union of India & Ors.

Delhi HC7 Nov 2024W.P.(C)/15170/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A BSF employee posted at Jodhpur sought a direction to be transferred to Delhi, claiming he must travel for treatment at AIIMS, New Delhi because his medical records were not sent to AIIMS, Jodhpur. The court declined to decide on merits and treated the petition as a representation to be decided by the competent authority within eight weeks.

What did the court decide?

Respondents to treat the petition as a representation and decide it in accordance with law within eight weeks, communicating the decision to the petitioner.

Mustaq Ahmad Ansari Vs Union of India & Ors. — Service and Employment | Delhi HC (2024)

¶1

$~1

¶2

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of decision: 07.11.2024

¶3

- W.P.(C) 15170/2024 MUSTAQ AHMAD ANSARI .....Petitioner

¶4

Through: Mr.Abhay Kumar Bhargava, Adv.

¶5

versus

¶6

.....Respondents Through: Mr.Shrey Sharawat, SPC with Mr.Rudra, GP & Ms.Ishita Misra, Adv.

¶7

UNION OF INDIA & ORS.

¶8

CORAM:

¶9

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAVIN CHAWLA HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE SHALINDER KAUR

¶10

NAVIN CHAWLA, J. (Oral)

¶11

By the present petition, the petitioner prays for a direction to the respondents to transfer him to New Delhi from Jodhpur for further treatment at AIIMS, New Delhi.

¶12

Issue notice.

¶13

Notice is accepted by Mr.Shrey Sharawat, learned counsel on behalf of the respondents.

¶14

It is the case of the petitioner that pursuant to the Order dated 23.02.2022, passed by this Court in an earlier petition filed by the petitioner, being W.P.(C) 857/2022, the petitioner joined at STC, BSF, Jodhpur. AIIMS, Jodhpur, however, required all the medical

¶15

Signature Not Verified

¶16

Digitally Signed W.P.(C) 15170/2024 Page 1 of 3 By:SUNIL Signing Da te:1 3.11.2024 13:35:18

¶17

documents and data of the petitioner’s treatment at AIIMS, New Delhi to be forwarded to them. The respondents forwarded this request to AIIMS, New Delhi vide letter dated 28.04.2022, however, the said documents/data were not supplied by AIIMS, New Delhi to AIIMS, Jodhpur. The petitioner claims that because of this, he has to travel from Jodhpur to Delhi each time for his treatment at AIIMS, New Delhi. He, therefore, prays for being transferred back to Delhi in order to have proper treatment.

¶18

On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondents submits that the petitioner can have proper treatment at AIIMS, Jodhpur and if, for any personal reasons, he is visiting Delhi for his treatment, he cannot claim a right to be transferred to Delhi. She further submits that there are other proceedings also pending against the petitioner for having unlawfully retained the quarter allotted to him at Delhi.

¶19

We have considered the submissions made by the learned counsels for the parties.

¶20

Without expressing any opinion on the merits of the submissions made by either of the parties, we are of the opinion that the respondents should consider the present petition as a representation of the petitioner and decide upon the same in accordance with law within a period of eight weeks from today, and communicate the decision to the petitioner. We again reiterate that we have not expressed any opinion on the merits of the claim made by either of the parties and all relevant factors shall be considered by the competent authority while deciding on the representation of the

¶21

Signature Not Verified

¶22

Digitally Signed W.P.(C) 15170/2024 Page 2 of 3 By:SUNIL Signing Da te:1 3.11.2024 13:35:18

¶23

petitioner, including his medical record.

¶24

Needless to state, in case the representation of the petitioner is rejected by the respondents, it shall be open to the petitioner to challenge the same in accordance with law.

¶25

The petition is disposed of in the above terms.

¶26

NAVIN CHAWLA, J

¶27

SHALINDER KAUR, J

¶28

NOVEMBER 7, 2024 /rv/SJ

¶29

Click here to check corrigendum, if any

¶30

Signature Not Verified

¶31

Digitally Signed W.P.(C) 15170/2024 Page 3 of 3 By:SUNIL Signing Da te:1 3.11.2024 13:35:18

Mustaq Ahmad Ansari v. Union of India & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mustaq Ahmad Ansari 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

M/S Jai Shri Banke Bihari Traders Vs Union of India & Ors.

Dr Robin Malik & Anr. Vs Govt of NCT of Delhi

Sanjay Gambhir Vs State of NCT of Delhi & Ors.

Rachna Paul Vs Government of NCT of Delhi and Ors.

Jayaswal Necom Indsutries Ltd. & Anr. Vs UOI & Ors.

Kuldeep Kumar Singh Vs Apex Public School & Anr.

Manju Sharma Vs Apex Public School & Anr.

South Delhi Municipal Corporation Vs Raj Kumar Kanahi Nursery & Anr.

Union of India and Ors. Vs Ex Hav Dsc Gd Gyan Prakash

Union of India and Ors. Vs (Dsc) Ex Hav Mam Raj Sharma

Union of India and Ors. Vs Ex Hav (Dsc/Gd) Madan Mohan Lal

Satyendra Singh Sahrawat Vs Union of India & Ors.

Vikki Kumar Paswan Vs Union of India & Ors.

Madhav Prasad Yadav and Ors. Vs Union of India and Ors.