Dismissed¶¶18

Sandeep Kumar v. Union of India & Ors.

Delhi HC17 Apr 2026W.P.(C)/5157/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Keywords: transfer order; Port Blair; six months' time prior to relieving; transfer policy expression “ordinarily”; enforceable right; deferral of relieving; Article 226 of the Constitution of India; writ of certiorari; extraordinary jurisdiction; arbitrariness; dismissal. Matter: W.P.(C) 5157/2026 and CM APPL. 25254/2026, Sandeep Kumar v. Union of India & Ors., High Court of Delhi, decided 17.04.2026 by Justice Anil Kshetarpal and Justice Amit Mahajan. Petition dismissed; no precedents cited; single statutory reference (Article 226).

What did the court decide?

The transfer policy does not mandate a minimum notice period of six months; the expression “ordinarily” used therein cannot be construed as conferring an enforceable right on the employee. ¶¶15

Sandeep Kumar Vs Union of India & Ors. — Writ and Judicial Review | Delhi HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶¶18

Issue for consideration

Whether the Petitioner ought to have been granted six months' time prior to relieving, as contemplated by the transfer policy through the expression “ordinarily”, and whether that expression confers an enforceable right. +1 more

¶¶14

Court's answer

The transfer policy does not mandate a minimum notice period of six months; the expression “ordinarily” used therein cannot be construed as conferring an enforceable right on the employee.

¶¶15

Ratio / Principle

The Petitioner had completed nearly three years at the present station and was aware that he was liable to be transferred under the applicable policy; additionally, at his own request his relieving had already been deferred for approximately three months, undercutting any claim of arbitrariness in the timing of his relief.

¶¶16

Key takeaways

No arbitrariness, illegality, or procedural infirmity is made out warranting interference with the Impugned Orders in exercise of the extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.ratio¶¶17

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Delhi High Court (Anil Kshetarpal and Amit Mahajan, JJ., order dated 17.04.2026) dismissed W.P.(C) 5157/2026 in which Sandeep Kumar sought a writ of certiorari to quash four orders dated 28.01.2026, 20.02.2026, 23.02.2026 and 07.04.2026 issued by Union of India & Ors., including his transfer from Delhi to Port Blair. The Court held that the transfer policy's provision for six months' notice prior to relieving, expressed as “ordinarily”, mandates no minimum notice period and creates no enforceable right; that the Petitioner had served nearly three years at the station, knew he was liable to transfer, and had himself obtained deferral of relieving for approximately three months; and that therefore no arbitrariness, illegality or procedural infirmity warranted interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Petition dismissed; pending application closed.

¶1

$~37

¶2

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

W.P.(C) 5157/2026 and CM APPL. 25254/2026 SANDEEP KUMAR .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Himanshu Gautam, Ms. Niharika Punn, Advs.

¶4

versus

¶5

UNION OF INDIA & ORS. .....Respondents Through: Mr. Shoumendu Mukherji Senior Panel Counsel with Mr. Vinay Kaushik, GP with Ms. Megha Sharma, Mr. Aniruddha Ghosh, Ms. Surabhi Tuli, Advs. for UOI with Deputy Commandant Tanishka Naithani.

¶6

CORAM:

¶7

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KSHETARPAL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT MAHAJAN

¶8

O R D E R % 17.04.2026

¶9

Through the present Petition, the Petitioner seeks issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing the orders dated 28.01.2026, 20.02.2026, 23.02.2026 and 07.04.2026 [hereinafter referred to as „Impugned Orders‟] passed by the Respondents.

¶10

The Petitioner was posted at Delhi in March, 2023. Thereafter, vide Impugned Transfer Order dated 28.01.2026, he was transferred to Port Blair. On the request of the Petitioner, his relieving was deferred for a period of two months. Subsequently, another request for deferment was also accepted by the Competent Authority. Now the Petitioner has sought to be relieved. Hence, he has come to the Court.

¶11

Learned counsel representing the Petitioner submits that the

¶12

This is a digitally signed order.

¶13

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 20/04/2026 at 15:37:03

¶14

Petitioner ought to have been granted six months‟ time prior to relieving and that the transfer policy contemplates such period, the expression used therein being “ordinarily”.

¶15

This Court finds no merit in the said submission. The policy does not mandate a minimum notice period of six months and merely uses the expression “ordinarily”, which cannot be construed as conferring an enforceable right.

¶16

Moreover, the Petitioner had completed nearly three years at the present station and was aware that he was liable to be transferred in terms of the applicable policy. Significantly, at the Petitioner‟s own request, his relieving already stood deferred for approximately three months.

¶17

In view of the aforesaid, no arbitrariness, illegality, or procedural infirmity is made out, warranting interference with the Impugned Orders in exercise of the extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

¶18

The present Petition is accordingly dismissed. The pending application also stands closed.

¶19

ANIL KSHETARPAL, J.

¶20

AMIT MAHAJAN, J.

¶21

APRIL 17, 2026 jai/shah

¶22

This is a digitally signed order.

¶23

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 20/04/2026 at 15:37:03

Sandeep Kumar v. Union of India & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sandeep Kumar v. Union of India & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Aditi Randhawa Vs Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Ors.

Rakesh Jolly Vs Idbi Bank

Bishwabhbhar Nath Tiwari Vs Union of India & Ors.

Devender Rai Vs Sangeet Natak Akademi New Delhi

M/S Malik Seasoning and Spices Private Limited Vs Commissioner of Goods and Service Tax

M/S Kanika Exports Vs Union of India & Ors.

Ex Gc Ashutosh Kumar Vs Union of India and Ors.

Lalit Mohan Vs Municipal Corporation of Delhi & Ors.

M/S Hind Nirman and Company Vs Delhi Development Authority and Anr.

Gurjar Rakeshsingh Vs Union of India & Ors.

Mordhwaj Sharma Vs Union of India & Ors.

Mds Solutions Pvt. Ltd. Vs Dbocwwb

Asstt Comdt Rajeev Ranjan Vs Union of India & Ors.

Kamal Kanwar Vs Union of India and Ors.