IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BILASPUR (C.G.I WMTPETmON N0. ^9LT /2006 S| a.S? B8i PETITIONBR ^^y^ \0^--^^^"/-- •<^z--""" r.-.'A-;\ \ \..--" IC 41056F Lt. Col. M.K. Sharma, S/o. Late Shri S.R. Sharma, Aged about 48 years, Occupation - Defence Services, Presently working as Head Works, S.F. Complex (DRDO), Jagdalpur - 494001 (C.G.) .'..c' VERSUS RESPONDENTS , ^J^fJ^& ^rt •^4^T^' ^^^^iS^^ ^' ^•'M'R:lyi' ^l '."• - :KV»i'-• f^yy.. ""1-.,..,^^^1;^^ '^•'-^' S8%, -n-.iS.lsu ,,5%^tsss^s- fc.iw>'"' :g; :.K%^i^J •*' if<4»; 4. 5. ^ Union of India, Through Defence Secretary, Ministay of Defence, Govt. oflndia, New Delhi Military Secretary Branch (MS-3B), Army Headquarter, DHQ P.0. New Delhi - 110011. HQ DRDO, Directorate of Personnel PERS-4, B Wing, Sena Bhawan, NewDelhi- 110011. Director, ASL Kanchan Bagh, Hyderabad (A.P.) General Manager, S.F. Complex (DRDO), Jagdalpur - 494001 (C.G.) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226/227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA FOR ISSUANCE OF WRIT IN THE NATURE OF MANDAMUS. CERTIORARI, PROHIBITION AND FOR OTHER SUITABLE WRIT OR WRITS, ORDER OR ORDERS. ^^J^NRECIION OR DIRECTIONS. %, jThe petitiorier, above named, most humbly and respectfully Its as under :- ^IL^I^-^^^^ XI-HC.22. sn^r^f K-u'h sn^i ?b+liqi •^%a ^g'STrai^^'iiWi^ €1^ 1WWI VhHieh 3TR%1"P^ 1 ; \^ \^j^ W^ 200 'f^^SI' SII^T TOIIW flf?^ 18-1-2006 Shri Manindra Shriva; Khan, counsel for the petition( Shri S.K. Beriwal, Sr. respondents. Shri Hemant Bais, Adn'l Heard. By this petitfon under india, the petitioner whois pr Complex (DRDO), JagdalpM; 10-t1-2005 (Annexure-P/3) the petitioner has been transi] Air Command, Shiiong. Reply to the applicatioit on behaif ofrespondent no. 5j The matter came up heard on that date, but durirfg parties were directed to seekt (Megataya) there is any medj was adjoumed for 18-1-200$. parties that they have sought Shri Shrivastava, learrji< petitioner submits that the pe|f Services, after receiving the tifai before the compstent Vrequesting for cancellation auth4>rity sftT^fo?^ TV^ ^ 'fe^t '^I^3T< '^srf^sn^t r jtava, Sr. Advocate with Shri Afroz )r. Panei Lawyer for the Union of India/ •|n. Assistant 'B' is aiso present. ^rticles 226/227 of the Constitution of ijesentiy working as HeadVi/orks, S.F. r, has chaiienged the order dated (tassed by respondent No.2 whereby iiferred and posted to SO 1(L) Eastern M.W.P. No. 170/2006 has been filed |for hearing on 17-1-2006and was the courae of arguments, both me instructions as to whether in Shilong |cai coilege or not. Hence, the matter ^. it is stated by the counsel for the Instructions. |ied senior counsei appearing for the titioner who is a Member of Derence ordersubmitted representation on 21-11-2005 (Annexure-P/4) of impugned transfer order dated ['[it^ ^fd^ tfansfer ::V!StS ^XI-HC-22 ^^ '^IWM'i, 9'S\WW, KvlWff. SIl^tTl ft;-)i* arg^r a'TOT^fB? 3TI^T 'q^R ,^T ICTfoG HIH^ll WHI^i "HT. 200 3ii^?r?^irw^fer T- 10-11-20 on the ground th^t the eidest daughter or the petitioner is now preparing for the Ent Colieges (MBBS Course) Chhattisgarh under Defeni •&nce Examination to Medical/ Dental i|>r the year 2006 in the State of <e Personnei Quota as per the notification dated 10-4-200p with regard to PiviT Entrance ». Examination issued by Department of Health & Famiiy Welfare.. He alsosubmits that when the p from the respondent authoriti writ petition bearing W.P.No.qi 76/2005. Writ petition No.6176/ vide order dated 15-12-2005 parties and it was directed th petitioner be decided as eari^ on one montb and tiil the ret be allowed to continue. Learned senfor counsfr ihat the representation ha< ^T^ld^n 'RFRTf ^ fs^ Tf^RR ^siPtFTan^r ^titioner faiied to evoke any response is, he approached t'nis Court by frting p005 was disposed of by this Court (Arinexure-P/T) after hearing both the »tthe representation submitted by the as possibie preferabiy within a period >resentetion is deeided, the petitioner authorities and the communication to that effect is Annexure-P/8. He further submits that the acceded without assigning i tequest ofthe petitioner has not been tiy reason. He also submits that there is no reference to the order cffthe High Court. ShriBeriwai, learned respondents, who had filed grant or ad-interim relief has behalf of respondent No appearjng for the petitionersubmits been decided by the respondent 3r. Panei Lawyer for the Union of India/ he caveat was supplied with the copy of the petition aiongwith ite ^nnexures. Reply to the application for beenfiied alongwiththe documents on 5/Generai IVianager, S.F. Complex [T^^git nB sa T T XI-HC-22 T5T-siiqi^pi, •g^ftWS, 'feirH§t ^'i/ofc WdcOT Slil|T9» fg^sr' an^i^ii R'li'b SfR'S gnwnftti aiT^i ^snwsfln ^ (DRDO), Jagdaipur. Leame<) has been transferred due tb counse! referred to documedi below: "A/35151/41056/MS-1^ MILITARY,SEQREmRY'S {MS-12A) POSTING OFFRS SHfi.nMA.ENGRS /n<tffa 1. Ref Govt of Compte.r, Jagda!pur,\ MKSH-80/V01/2003 dr.| application dt21 NovO^ Min of Def (R&DO) SF fstter Na-SFC/ADMINPC/ 21 Nov 2005, ibrwarding tne 5 submitted by the offr. of offrs 2. The apfMication light of rstevant posijj service. Posting requifigments and personal requjremenii assigned to the offi- a thew is no longerany fhe stn and the offr fresh assignment to alkMances. ' ' 3. The request of\ same stn has ffyerefor^ is reqd to mov as ord^ed, by27Jan06. •*i'i<i<-i<fl-iT:iT*Rff-9iy^ <r^^i< ^T3TPaH3it^i counsel submits-that the petitioner administratiye exigency. Learned t Annexure-R-5/1, which is quoted 4 28 Dec. 2005 REmRY'S BRANCH :lC-41056LTCOLMK has been examined in the "fe' profiles and eyjgencies of is gruAfed i}y organizational ce^mot be enfrety based on SOTC® the pmject work Jagdafpur is naw complete, ['equif'ement to post an offr in fo be accommodafed in a be abie to draw pay & hhs the offr for retenffon in e not been accepted. Theoffr wi'th instructions to repori Sd/- (AAjayReddy) LtCo! : AMS-12" [^^ ^n^ •teK. XI-HC-22 '3^: •^i<<l<'t<i,;.STil+i'is, («<wi*I'i< §•? 3(1^1'W! R-li.tb 317^1 ?h^ w?tr r SW^f 'CI^raT ^1^1^ *<1*<WT ^SlW^K "W^ 200 (^•bttST' sn^r ^(aTWaf??T -'-<• During the course of s| who decided the represental compiiance of the order datedl W.P.No.6176/2005. On thisl representation was considerec? by the Miiitary Branch Secretary. Shri Beriwai, learned for the children of the petition 2006 and thereafter if the p facility the same may aiso would renderali possible coorieration. So far as appearance issued as per ruies. So far ai. l:hl*lF<n4)'F) TTTO^ff ^ f^l<ri '<FiT'c^1< ^T sipgii an^r Irguments the question arose as to ion submitted by the peiitioner in 15-12-2005 passed bythis Couri: in Shri Beriwai submits that the counsei for the Union of india/ respondents submits that the [pepartment has ail the considerations ^r. He further submits that today he has taken instructions from tbe authorities to the effect that the petitioner may retain the acccjmmodation for his famiiy tiil August, titioner requires to extend the said >e considered and the Department of the petitioner's daughter in PMT Entrance Examination is co|ncerned, necessary certificates be interference of this Court in the writ petition under Articie 226/2g7 of the Constitution of India is concerned, the Supreme Coitt in the case cX Maiw GeneralJ.K. Bansalvs. Uhion oflndia artd others reDorted in 2005 AiR SCW 407S after consideririg the National Hydro-eiectric Po' iiecisions rendered in the cases or 'jiver Corporation Ltd. v. Bhagwan been rencaered in the those who are i' (2001 AiR SCW 3548), Uniofn of india v. S.L. Abbas (1993 AIR SCW 1753) & Mrs. Shilpi 8<>se v. State of Bihar (AIR 1991 SC 532), has held as under : "12. it wiii be notic^d mat these ctecisions have 'pase of crvilian emptoyees or \"3rking in Puh!'!c Secter [^^firt T XI-HC-22 '3^ "i||'i<ld'l1, a'nl'M'ie, McllSy 3I1^[^iT W* sn^?i ^li* yfea ^ Gowri/P r .*<it«fr%in^> •^^ 1 V^f ISQ)/P^ T^""""""""~""""""T""'^ sn^i ?:E(IRIT ^ifei >rr~ Undenaksngs. Thesco^p fegard to fnenibers oi iimited and narraw. itis cfecfcte when and whete forees shouki be pos< extremety sfow in inteii^ring of such category oi exceptionally stfong interference should be li ^ of interference by courts in armed forves is far more ^ fbr ie ivgher authorities to a member of the armed jed. The Courts should be with an order of transfer persons and uniess an lca.s® fe macfe out, no hade." Having considered the materiai on record, in view of rendered in the case of Maior fects and cireumstances of the case, |the decision of the Supreme Court \Generai J.K. Bansai ('supra') and in bi/ view of the statement made the Union of india/respondj interference under Article 226/2 At this stage, Shri S| appearing for the petitioner, permitted to make representi^tion No.1. Let he may do so and ifl sucl the petitioner the same may b< merits in accordance with iaw. 'with the aforesaid disposed of.' Consequently, M.(W.)| aiso stand disposed of. Parties are entitled for der qil<(f(1<i1l 'iITII^f'? fet£t<1»]^1< ^T 3lfi?n SI]^?[ the learned counsel appearing for i^nts, no case is made out for E27 ofthe Constitution of india. hrivastava, learned senior counsei ^ubmits that the petitioner may be afresh before the respondent iflsuch representation is being filed by considered and decided on its own )Dservanons, me petiuon stanas P.No.170/2006 & I.A.N0.5SO/2006 ertified copy of this order. Sti!- ^w^ 3udSe TI^ SRdil