Full Text
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Date of Decision: 24.04.2025
SATISH KUMAR BADHALIA .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Arun Kanwa along
Through: Mr. Naginder Benipal, SPC
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE RENU BHATNAGAR NAVIN CHAWLA, J. (Oral)
JUDGMENT
1. Allowed, subject to all just exceptions. CM APPLs. 23802-03/2025 (Exemption)
2. This petition has been filed by the petitioner, challenging the Order dated 07.04.2025 passed by the learned Central Administrative Tribunal (PB), New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as ‘Tribunal’) in Original Application No. 2161/2024 (O.A.) titled Satish Kumar Badhalia v. Union of India through the Secretary & Ors., dismissing the said O.A. filed by the respondent herein. W.P.(C) 5221/2025 & CM APPL. 23801/2025
3. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner had filed the above O.A. before the learned Tribunal stating therein that he is working as Lead Hand Fireman ‘A’ (hereinafter referred to as “LHF ‘A’ ”) at the Vehicle Subgroup Depot (hereinafter referred to as “VSD”), Delhi, which is part of the Fire Fighting Staff. He has been suffering from Prolonged Asthma, Hypertension, Sleep Study, Spine issues (L[3], L[4], L[5], S[1] & S[2]) and knee problems since 2015, due to which he has even given up his promotion and has been retained in the Central Vigilance Department (hereinafter referred to as “CVD”), Delhi.
4. Vide a Notification dated 21.05.2019, the CVD, Delhi was disbanded, and the Ordinance Sub-group VSD, New Delhi was created. The sanctioned strength of the LHF in VSD, Delhi was reduced from 6 to 2.
5. Vide Order dated 27.05.2023, the petitioner was transferred/redeployed to Jaisalmer (hereinafter referred to as “transfer order”), and vide Order dated 04.05.2024, the petitioner was relieved from his current position (hereinafter referred to as “relieving order”). Aggrieved by both the orders, the petitioner filed the above O.A.
6. The petitioner contended therein that the Ministry of Defence had issued a draft guidelines dated 30.01.2020 titled ‘Roadmap for Redeployment of Civilian Defence Employees consequent recommendation COT’ (hereinafter referred to as “draft guidelines”), wherein it was provided that all Group C civilian employees of the Indian Army affected by the disbandment of the CVD shall be accommodated/adjusted at the same/nearby station i.e. 50-kilometer radius.
7. The petitioner contended that the transfer order was, therefore, in violation of the draft guidelines. The petitioner further submitted that he had made a representation dated 19.04.2024 for a change of his posting, which had not been considered before the passing of the relieving order.
8. The learned Tribunal, relying on the submission of the petitioner that his representation had not been considered, passed an Interim Order dated 21.05.2024 as under:
9. Upon receiving the response from the respondent, however, the learned Tribunal has dismissed the O.A., observing therein that the draft policy that was relied upon by the petitioner had, in fact, undergone a change on 30.01.2020, and it had been decided that the surplus group ‘C’ Defence Civilian Employees could be posted beyond 50-kilometre in cases where it was not possible to post them within a 50-kilometer radius due to non-availability of suitable vacancies.
10. The learned Tribunal further took note of the fact that the respondent had considered the representation of the petitioner and found no merit in the same, as there were no vacancies available within a 50-kilometre radius of Delhi and the petitioner was a part of the surplus staff.
11. The medical condition of the petitioner was also considered, and his representation was rejected by an Order dated 09.07.2024.
12. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the learned Tribunal has failed to appreciate that the medical condition of the petitioner had not been properly appreciated by the respondent while passing the order rejecting his representation.
13. He submits that, in fact, the order rejecting his representation was given to the petitioner only at the time of the final hearing of the O.A..
14. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent reiterates that the case of the petitioner was not only considered in terms of the revised policy but his medical condition was also taken into account. As there was no suitable vacancy available within a radius of 50 kilometres, the petitioner was relieved from his posting, and his representation was rejected. He submits that preference postings were given strictly based on seniority. He further submits that the petitioner has not joined his place of posting in spite of being relieved from his current posting.
15. We have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties.
16. The learned Tribunal, in our opinion, rightly observed that the jurisdiction of a court to interfere with the transfers/posting order is extremely limited and it can be exercised only when the transfer is found to be in violation of certain policy guidelines or actuated by malice or where relevant considerations have not been taken into account by the employer.
17. In the present case, the respondents have considered the case of the petitioner in terms of its revised policy and have found that there are no vacancies that are available within a 50-kilometre radius where the petitioner could have been accommodated. It is also stated that it has gone strictly by seniority for determining the posting. The representation of the petitioner regarding his health condition was also considered, however, he could not be accommodated on that basis.
18. We, therefore, find no infirmity in the order passed by the learned Tribunal. The petition is accordingly dismissed. However, the right of the petitioner to make a further representation to the respondent for a change of his posting keeping in view his medical condition, is kept open, and if made, the same be considered by the respondents in accordance with law.
NAVIN CHAWLA, J RENU BHATNAGAR, J APRIL 24, 2025/Pr/My/DG Click here to check corrigendum, if any