IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Stay Application No.7009 of 2010 In Writ Petition No. 718 of 2010 (S/S) Anand Singh Chauhan, JE Civil, Vill-Baarotiwala, P.O. Khera, Vikash Nagar,Dehradun. ……Petitioner. Versus Union of India and others. …….Respondents Mr. Shaildenra Nauriyal, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Vikas Pande, Standing Counsel for the Union of India-respondents. Hon’ble B.S.Verma, J. Heard learned counsel of the parties and perused the record. By means of this writ petition, the petitioner has sought a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing the impugned order dated 07-05-2010 (Annexure No.1) order dated 31-05-2010(Annexure No.11) and order dated 29-07-2010(Annexure No.13). By annexure No.1, the petitioner has been transferred from CWE (H) Dehradun to GE Saugor. Aggrieved by the transfer order dated07-05-2010, the petitioner preferred the writ petition No.401 of 2010 (S/S), Anand Singh Chauhan Vs. Union of India and others, the writ petition was disposed of by this Court directing the authority concerned to decide the representation of the petitioner pending for disposal for reconsideration and till the disposal of the representation, the order of transfer shall remain in abeyance. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the representation of the petitioner has been rejected vide order dated 29- 07-2010 on the ground that the condition of para No.36 © of posting policy does not cover CML postings. Despite various correspondence 2 made, you failed to submit your choice stations for CML posting in due time and hence due to non receipt of your choice stations in time, the transfer was made. By a perusal of Clause 36 ©, prima facie, it covers Command Manning Level Posting (CML). During the course of argument, learned standing counsel for the Union of India has informed to the Court that the choice of posting was received by the department after two days of the transfer order. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also discloses this fact that he had given the choice within time. This fact is not disclosed in the transfer order but in view of the Clause 36 © of the transfer policy, which is applicable in the case of CML posting, the petitioner has a right to be posted at place for which choice is to be given. In the earlier writ petition, the averment was made to this effect that the petitioner has made the choice but the respondent did not consider this aspect while in the clause there is a mentioned that [The CML postings should be ordered on region to be framed by CEs command based on concept of Zonal Chief Engineer areas considering the geographical contiguity, travel time (preferably not more than over night journey) and other MES formations of Air Force/Navy/R&D/Factory stations in the region.) According to the petitioner, on 19-04-2010 he submitted his three choice stations for posting/transfer in the set format, which has been annexed as annexure No.6 to the writ petition. According to the respondent, it reached late after passing the order. There may be some delay but the petitioner made the choice 3 within time to the concerned office. On this ground the petitioner representation is liable to be reconsider. The authority concerned is directed to reconsider the representation of the petitioner and shall pass speaking and reasoned order again by considering the choice of the posting/transfer of the petitioner within a period of two weeks from the date of production of certified copy of this order. With the said direction, the writ petition is disposed of finally. All pending application stand disposed of accordingly. (B.S.Verma, J.) 18-08-2010 MK