'Accommodating One Is Always At Cost Of Another': High Court Disposes Constable's Plea For Perpetuating Posting At Delhi On Medical Grounds

The Delhi High Court has observed that unlimited number of personnel of any force cannot be accommodated in Delhi as accommodating one person is always at the cost of another.

Denying relief to a constable of Central Industrial Security Force (CISF), a division bench comprising of Justices Rajiv Sahai Endlaw and Amit Bansal observed thus:

"Unlimited number of personnel of any force cannot be accommodated at Delhi. Accommodating one is always at the cost of another, who though may have been wanting to be posted at Delhi and whose circumstances also justify the same, is unable to be so posted owing to those already posted, by invoking medical/sympathetic grounds refusing to move out of Delhi."

The constable, posted in the NCR region since 2011, had approached the High Court challenging the order of his transfer to Uttarakhand's Tapovan and also the order directing the personnel earmarked for posting to be relieved by June 10.

The petitioner had challenged the transfer order on the ground that first, he was diagnosed in 2015 with Paranoid Schizophrenia; second, that his wife was diagnosed with Seizure disorder in 2016 and third, that his mother residing with him was unwell and hospitalized.

Hearing the challenge, the Bench opined thus:

"We have in our tenure on this Roster noticed that once a personnel of any force is posted at Delhi, he/she does not want to leave Delhi and wants to perpetuate his/her stay at Delhi. We have in several judgments held that exercise of discretion on sympathetic/compassionate grounds by the Court in favour of such persons is always to the prejudice of others who are not before the Court."

Relying on the relevant judgments on the subject, the Court dismissed the petition while directing the CISF to consider the documents filed by the petitioner and decide his representation.

"It is however made clear that this order shall not be construed as any stay on operation of the impugned transfer/relieving orders and if the representation is not decided or decided against the petitioner, the petitioner shall not be entitled to approach the Court, as voluntarily undertaken by the petitioner through counsel to avoid dismissal of the petition on merits," the Court said.

Title: Ram Prakash v. Union of India & Ors.

Click Here To Download Order