Hav (Clk Sd) Kulwinder Singh v. Union of India and Others

JUDGMENT SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J. (ORAL)

¶1Petitioner seeks cancellation of extension of posting order dated

03.06.2022 and seeks a direction that the petitioner be retained at Delhi till his discharge is sanctioned.

¶2Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner was

kept in the waiting list as per their Communication dated 21.10.2019 at serial No.59 and till date he has not been discharged.

¶3Learned counsel for the respondent has produced subsequent communication dated 25.07.2023 wherein it is stated that the seniority of the petitioner's application for premature retirement now stands at serial number 25.

¶4Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that as per his information, respondents are giving premature retirement outside the list and he reserves his right to seek appropriate remedy in accordance with law in case the senority in the list is breached or any person outside the list is released.

¶5Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that since petitioner is transferred to a field area, he shall be entitled to a field accommodation.

¶6Order dated 25.11.2022 notes the contentions of the petitioner that his Extra Regimental Employment tenure in Delhi was extended by the communication dated 06.05.2022 on medical grounds for one year i.e. up to May, 2023. However, by communication dated

03.06.2022, the extension was cancelled.

¶7Keeping in view the above submissions, this Court had directed stay of the communication dated 03.06.2022. We notice that the said period of extension, as communicated by the Communication dated

06.05.2022, has already elapsed.

¶8Learned counsel for the petitioner seeks leave to withdraw the petition reserving the right of the petitioner to approach the Armed Forces Tribunal, if aggrieved by the decision of the respondent or inaction of the respondent on the application seeking discharge.

¶9Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he also reserves the right of the petitioner to give a representation to respondents to reconsider the order of posting or post the petitioner to a place where he can have adequate medical treatment for his child as also for granting such benefits as may be admissible to personnel posted in field areas.

¶10In view of the above, the petition is dismissed as withdrawn with liberty as prayed for.

¶11Keeping in view the medical condition of the child of the petitioner, he is granted two months time to join in terms of the posting order dated 03.06.2022.

¶12Order Dasti under the signatures of the Court Master.

SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J

1.

MANOJ JAIN, J JULY 27, 2023 st

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Judgment delivered on: 27th July, 2023 + W.P.(C) 14648/2022 & CM APPL. 50882/2022 HAV (CLK SD) KULWINDER SINGH ..... Petitioner versus UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS ..... Respondent Advocates who appeared in this case: For the Petitioner : Mr. Ajit Kakkar with Mr. Ankit Negi, Advocates. For the Respondent: Mr. Mohit Kumar Auluck and Mr.Sushil Raaja, CGSC for UOI and Mr.Vivek Nagar, GP Major Partho Katyayan. CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ JAIN