Disposed¶11

Swati v. Food Corporation of India & Anr.

Delhi HC20 Apr 2026W.P.(C)/5322/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Delhi High Court order disposing of writ petition against FCI temporary deputation/tour-duty order for Rabi Marketing Season (RMS) 2026-27 procurement in Rajasthan Region; exemption representation rejected; merits challenge withdrawn, relief limited to time to comply; one week's accommodation granted on humanitarian and equitable grounds for working mother/primary caregiver of minor child; court noted deputation on tour basis is not a transfer; no statutory provisions or precedents cited; bench: Sanjeev Narula, J.; date of order: 20.04.2026; case ref: W.P.(C) 5322/2026.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner granted one week's accommodation from 20.04.2026 to report for duty in Rajasthan in terms of the impugned order; petition and pending CM application disposed of. ¶11

Swati Vs Food Corporation of India & Anr. — Delhi HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Petitioner granted one week's accommodation from 20.04.2026 to report for duty in Rajasthan in terms of the impugned order; petition and pending CM application disposed of.

¶11

Issue for consideration

Whether the Petitioner should be granted time (accommodation) to make childcare arrangements and report for duty in Rajasthan pursuant to the impugned temporary deputation order, given her personal circumstances as primary caregiver to a four-year-old daughter. +1 more

¶3

Court's answer

On equitable considerations arising from the Petitioner's personal circumstances and the short notice (order issued 9th April 2026, representation rejected 17th April 2026, reporting required the same day), the Court granted the Petitioner one week's accommodation from the date of the order (20.04.2026) to report for duty in Rajasthan in terms of the impugned order.

¶9

Key takeaways

The Court clarified that the indulgence (one week's accommodation) was granted purely on humanitarian and equitable grounds, in the peculiar facts of the present case, signalling that it carried no broader precedential implication.obiter¶10
The Court observed that the impugned order dated 9th April, 2026 is one of temporary deputation on a tour basis and not a transfer in the strict sense; accordingly, the validity of the deputation itself was not at issue, and the challenge on merits was not examined following the Petitioner's statement withdrawing it.obiter¶7

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Delhi (Sanjeev Narula, J.) | W.P.(C) 5322/2026, CM APPL. 26026/2026 | Swati v. Food Corporation of India & Anr. | Order dated 20.04.2026. An FCI Assistant Grade I (Technical) challenged her deputation on temporary tour basis to the Rajasthan Region for RMS 2026-27 procurement (Office Order No. 41/2026 dated 9th April, 2026) and the rejection of her exemption representation (Office Order No. 26/2026 dated 17th April, 2026). The challenge on merits was not pressed; relief was confined to a limited prayer for time to comply. The Court observed that the impugned order was a temporary tour deputation and not a transfer in the strict sense, and declined to examine the merits. Noting the petitioner's circumstances as primary caregiver to her four-year-old daughter and the very short notice before reporting, the Court granted one week's accommodation from 20.04.2026 to report for duty in Rajasthan, expressly confining the indulgence to humanitarian and equitable grounds in the peculiar facts of the case. Petition and pending application disposed of.

¶1

$~100

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

- W.P.(C) 5322/2026, CM APPL. 26026/2026 SWATI .....Petitioner

¶4

Through: Mr. Madhav Bhatia, Mr. Vivek Suri, Ms. Amisha Awasthi and Ms. Muskan Aggarwal, Advocates.

¶5

versus

¶6

FOOD CORPORATION OF INDIA & ANR. .....Respondents Through: Mr. Om Prakash SC for FCI with Mr. Rajeev Ranjan Pathak, Advocate for R-1. Ms. Richa Kapoor, Ms. Udipti Chopra and Mr. Arjun Prasad, Advocates for R-1.

¶7

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV NARULA

¶8

O R D E R % 20.04.2026

¶9

The Petitioner is presently employed as Assistant Grade I (Technical), a Category III post, with Respondent No. 1 i.e., Food Corporation of India (“ FCI ”). She joined service in the year 2012 and, from 2015 onwards, has been deployed in field operations at FCI depots in the Uttarakhand Region for a substantial period. She was promoted to her present post in the year 2022 and, in 2025, was transferred to the Delhi Region, where she is presently posted at Divisional Office, Mayapuri, New Delhi.

¶10

The present petition assails Office Order No. 41/2026 dated 9^th April, 2026, whereby the Petitioner, along with other employees, has been deputed

¶11

W.P.(C) 5322/2026 Page 1 of 4

¶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 21/04/2026 at 12:03:16

¶14

on a temporary tour basis to the Rajasthan Region for work related to Rabi Marketing Season (“ RMS ”) 2026-27 procurement. The challenge also extends to Office Order No. 26/2026 dated 17^th April, 2026, whereby the Petitioner’s representation seeking exemption from such deputation has been rejected.

¶15

In the petition, the Petitioner has raised several grounds challenging the aforesaid orders, inter alia , alleging arbitrariness, non-adherence to the applicable policy framework, and discriminatory treatment. However, during proceedings, Mr. Madhav Bhatia, counsel for the Petitioner, on instructions, submits that the Petitioner does not wish to press the challenge on merits and confines the relief sought to a limited prayer for grant of time to comply with the impugned deputation order.

¶16

Mr. Bhatia submits that the Petitioner has a minor daughter aged about four years and is the primary caregiver. Her husband is a NeuroAnaesthetist at a hospital in New Delhi and is required to attend to emergency medical duties without fixed working hours. It is further submitted that, in order to make arrangements for the care of the child during her absence, the Petitioner is in the process of requesting her parents or the parents of her husband to step in and assist for the intervening period. In these circumstances, the Petitioner requires reasonable time to make appropriate arrangements for the care of her child during her absence, which, under the impugned order dated 9^th April, 2026, is expected to extend for approximately two to three months. It is also submitted that the Petitioner is required to report for duty at Rajasthan today.

¶17

The Petitioner, therefore, prays for grant of two weeks’ accommodation to enable her to make necessary arrangements before

¶18

W.P.(C) 5322/2026 Page 2 of 4

¶19

This is a digitally signed order.

¶20

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 21/04/2026 at 12:03:16

¶21

reporting pursuant to the impugned order dated 9^th April, 2026.

¶22

On the other hand, Mr. Om Prakash, Standing Counsel for FCI, submits that the deputation is necessitated by administrative exigencies, particularly in view of the ongoing Rabi procurement season. It is contended that the Petitioner’s technical qualifications render her suitable for the assignment. It is further submitted that the Petitioner has no inherent right to seek such accommodation and that any indulgence by this Court may lead to a flood of similar requests, thereby opening a Pandora’s box in matters of this nature.

¶23

The Court has considered the submissions advanced. At the outset, it is noted that the impugned order dated 9^th April, 2026 is one of temporary deputation on a tour basis and not a transfer in the strict sense. Further, in view of the statement made on behalf of the Petitioner, the challenge to the impugned orders on merits is not being examined.

¶24

Having regard to the facts of the case, particularly the personal circumstances of the Petitioner and the limited nature of relief now sought, this Court is of the view that some accommodation is warranted on equitable considerations. The impugned order was issued on 9^th April, 2026, and the Petitioner’s representation was rejected on 17^th April, 2026, leaving little time for her to make necessary arrangements, especially when she is required to report today.

¶25

In the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, the Petitioner is granted one week’s accommodation from today to report for duty in Rajasthan in terms of the impugned order.

¶26

It is clarified that this indulgence is granted purely on humanitarian and equitable grounds, in the peculiar facts of the present case.

¶27

W.P.(C) 5322/2026 Page 3 of 4

¶28

This is a digitally signed order.

¶29

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 21/04/2026 at 12:03:16

¶30

With the aforesaid directions, the present petition, along with the pending application, stands disposed of.

¶31

SANJEEV NARULA, J

¶32

APRIL 20, 2026 nk

¶33

W.P.(C) 5322/2026 Page 4 of 4

¶34

This is a digitally signed order. 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 21/04/2026 at 12:03:16

Swati v. Food Corporation of India & Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Swati v. Food Corporation of India & Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

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

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

Mr. Nisschal Jaain Vs Union of India & Ors.

Anil Bhalla Vs Directorate of Enforcement & Anr.

Solicitors India Law Offices Vs Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Facilitation Council & Anr.

Sunil Kumar Gandhi Vs Municipal Corporation of Delhi and Ors.

New Delhi Municipal Council Vs Harish Pal Singh & Ors.

Anju Kapoor Vs Directorate of Education & Anr.

Bikash Kumar Mahto and Ors. Vs Dedicated Freight Corridor Corporation of India Ltd.

Yashwant Yadav Vs National Education Society for Tribal Students & Ors.

Devender Singh Vs Union of India and Anr.

Neeraj Kumar Vs Union of India & Ors.

Krishan Vs Indian Bank & Anr.

Rajkiran Yadav Vs State Bank of India through Its Chief General Manager and Anr.