Sumiran Kumar v. Union of India and Others

Delhi High Court · 25 Jul 2023 · 2023:DHC:5137-DB

V. Kameswar Rao; Anoop Kumar Mendiratta

W.P.(C) 8441/2023

2023:DHC:5137-DB

administrative petition_dismissed

AI Summary

The Delhi High Court dismissed the writ petition challenging a transfer order, directing the petitioner to join the posting and submit a representation to be considered as per official guidelines.

Full Text

W.P.(C) 8441/2023
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Date of Decision: July 25, 2023

W.P.(C) 8441/2023, CM APPL. 32156/2023
SUMIRAN KUMAR ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Shanker Raju, Mr. Nilansh Gaur and Mr. Rajesh Sachdeva, Advocates.

VERSUS

UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Vineet Dhanda, CGSC with Mr. Vinay Yadav and Ms. Gurleen Kaur, Advocates for UOI.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V. KAMESWAR RAO
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR MENDIRATTA V. KAMESWAR RAO (Oral)

CM APPL. 32157/2023
Exemption allowed subject to all just exceptions.
Application is disposed of.

CM APPL. 32158/2023
For the reasons stated in the application, the application is allowed and additional documents are taken on record.
Application is disposed of.

W.P.(C) 8441/2023, CM APPL. 32156/2023

JUDGMENT

1. The challenge in this Writ Petition is to an order dated May 30, 2023 passed by Central Administrative Tribunal (in short “Tribunal”) in O.A. 1577/2023, wherein the challenge of the petitioner to his transfer order dated W.P.(C) 8441/2023 May 18, 2023 to Shivakasi, Tamil Nadu, has been disposed of by the Tribunal by stating in para 15 as under:

“15. With the above observations, the prayer for interim relief is rejected. The OA is disposed of at the initial stage with the direction to the applicant to first join the place of posting and then make a representation to the respondents and as noted in para 8 above, the applicant’s wife may also apply for transfer to the same place as his husband. As soon as the applicant makes the representation, the respondents may consider the grievance of the applicant as per the Department of Personnel and Training’s guidelines on the subject and in accordance with law.”

2. Mr. Raju states, he shall not press this petition subject to the fact that the respondents dispose of the representation in terms of the directions given by the Tribunal.

3. Mr. Dhanda, who appears for the respondents states that the representation shall be disposed of within four weeks from today, with a communication to the petitioner.

4. Taking the statement of Mr. Dhanda on record, the petition is disposed of.

5. Application is disposed of as infructuous.

V. KAMESWAR RAO, J.

ANOOP KUMAR MENDIRATTA, J. JULY 25, 2023

Sumiran Kumar v. Union of India and Others

AI Summary

Full Text

JUDGMENT

Contact Us for a Free Consultation