Skip to content
How to use Judgment tools
  1. Click Tools to open PDF, Print, Tag, Note, Favourite, and CiteSignal.
  2. Use Brief & Ask in the toolbar for the AI Brief and case chat.
  3. Jump to sections with the pills below the help bar.

Salil Kumar Bhalla Vs. Union of India Through Secretary, New Delhi and Others

Salil Kumar Bhalla vs Union of India Through Secretary, New Delhi and Others

Type Court Judgment Court Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi Decided Nov 01, 2011
~3 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/938182

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

  • 18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
  • Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
  • Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
  • Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account

Citation
Court
Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi
Judge
Decided On
Case Number
OA No. 3904 of 2011
Subject
Education

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Education

Key legal issue
Education

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Salil Kumar Bhalla

Advocate For the Applicant: R.K. Sharma, Advocate. For the Respondents: -----------

Respondent

Union of India Through Secretary, New Delhi and Others

Excerpt

.....request to the respondents with regard to deferment of his transfer and posting till march, 2012, i.e., the end of the current academic year, as his children are studying in 5th and 11th call in delhi. 4. in view of the above, the present application is disposed of at the admission stage with the directions to the applicant to file his representation with regard to deferment of transfer and posting till march, 2012 stating the reasons for deferment within a week from today. if such a representation is made by the applicant, then the respondents shall consider the said representation along with the present original application, as a supplementary representation, and pass a reasoned and speaking order as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of one month from the date of receipt of applicant’s representation. if such a representation is made by the applicant, the impugned transfer order shall not be given effect to till passing of the order on his representation if so made. 5. however, it is made clear that the aforesaid directions are not intended to operate to the prejudice to the respondents in any manner whatsoever. the respondents shall be free to take such decision as they may deem appropriate in accordance with the applicable rules. 6. this application is disposed of in the above terms.

Full Judgment

(Oral)

1. By filing the present Application under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, the applicant is challenging the Memorandum dated 2.9.2011 and Office Order dated 7.9.2011, as at Annexure A/3, as at Annexure A/I, whereby the applicant stood relieved from his duties consequent upon his transfer and posting to SIB, Raipur, vide IB Hqrs, Order dated 1.9.2011 w.e.f. 2.9.2011. The applicant has also challenged the orders 14.9.2001 and 4.10.2011 passed by the respondents on his representations preferred against the order of transfer. The applicant’s has challenged his transfer and posting order inter alia on the grounds that as per the Govt. of India instructions and case law on the subject that mid session transfer should be avoided; the applicant has liabilities of his old age mother, brother’s family and his own family as no other male member is available in the family to look after the family and his wife is also unwell and having medical problems; the applicant is not the senior most employee in his cadre (UDC) in Delhi; his representation was disposed of in an illegal manner without even considering his grievances.

2. In the prayer clause the applicant has sought a direction to the respondents to defer the posting of the applicant in pursuance of the aforesaid orders till March 2012, i.e., the end of the current academic year.

3. At the hearing, when it is pointed out to the applicant’s counsel that whether such a request is made to the respondents, Shri R.K. Sharma, learned counsel, fairly conceded that such a request has not been made to the respondents. He submits that a week’s time may be accorded to the applicant to submit a request to the respondents with regard to deferment of his transfer and posting till March, 2012, i.e., the end of the current academic year, as his children are studying in 5th and 11th call in Delhi.

4. In view of the above, the present Application is disposed of at the admission stage with the directions to the applicant to file his representation with regard to deferment of transfer and posting till March, 2012 stating the reasons for deferment within a week from today. If such a representation is made by the applicant, then the respondents shall consider the said representation along with the present Original Application, as a supplementary representation, and pass a reasoned and speaking order as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of one month from the date of receipt of applicant’s representation. If such a representation is made by the applicant, the impugned transfer order shall not be given effect to till passing of the order on his representation if so made.

5. However, it is made clear that the aforesaid directions are not intended to operate to the prejudice to the respondents in any manner whatsoever. The respondents shall be free to take such decision as they may deem appropriate in accordance with the applicable rules.

6. This Application is disposed of in the above terms.

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial