Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Delhi High Court - Orders

Anand Mohan Sharma vs Union Of India And Ors on 12 July, 2021

Author: Rajiv Sahai Endlaw

Bench: Rajiv Sahai Endlaw, Amit Bansal

$~23.
*     IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+     W.P.(C) 6375/2021
      ANAND MOHAN SHARMA                          ..... Petitioner
                       Through: Ms. Gauraan, Adv.

                                   versus

      UNION OF INDIA AND ORS                    ..... Respondents
                     Through: Ms. Harithi Kambiri, Adv.
      CORAM:
      HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW
      HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT BANSAL
               ORDER

%              12.07.2021

[VIA VIDEO CONFERENCING]

CM No.20038/2021 & 20039/2021 (both for exemption).

1. Allowed, subject to just exceptions and as per extant rules.

2. The applications are disposed of.

W.P.(C) 6375/2021.

3. The petitioner, an Assistant Commandant (Executive) in the respondents Central Industrial Security Force (CISF) and due to superannuate in the year 2022, has filed this petition impugning the order dated 28th May, 2020 of his transfer from Madhya Pradesh to Delhi, to the extent it denies Travelling Allowance (TA)/ Dearness Allowance (DA) to the petitioner and seeks a mandamus, directing the respondents CISF to grant TA/DA amounting to Rs.85,000/-, with interest, to the petitioner.

4. The counsel for the petitioner has argued that though the petitioner had applied for transfer from Madhya Pradesh to Delhi for the reason of his wife, also a Head Constable in the respondents CISF, being posted at Delhi W.P.(C) 6375/2021 Page 1 of 3 since the year 2008 and though in accordance with the applicable Rules, the respondents CISF, on such transfer on request, are entitled to withhold the transfer benefits but the transfer benefits of the petitioner have been wrongly withheld because the petitioner had applied for transfer on 15th July, 2019 and the order of transfer was issued only on 28th May, 2020 i.e. after eleven months and the petitioner relieved only on 11th June, 2020. It is argued that once such transfer, even though on request, was after considerable delay, TA/DA could not have been denied to the petitioner. It is further the contention of the counsel for the petitioner, that the respondents, at the relevant time did not inform the petitioner that TA/DA was being denied to the petitioner; had the petitioner been so told, he would have preferred to stay at Madhya Pradesh, rather than with his wife at Delhi.

5. The counsel for the respondents appearing on advance notice states that the petitioner was posted at Madhya Pradesh for one year and ten months and his transfer, on own request, was prior to the normal tenure of three years. It is further stated that under the Rules, the respondents CISF, on allowing such transfer on request, are entitled to withhold transfer benefits.

6. Neither counsel is aware whether DA stands for Dearness Allowance. We presume TA to be standing for Travel Allowance. It is inexplicable as to why Dearness Allowance is deprived on transfer on own request.

7. The counsel for the respondents CISF also states that she will place on record the documents/Rules in the aforesaid regard.

8. Issue notice.

9. Notice is accepted by the counsel for the respondents CISF.

10. Counter affidavit be filed within four weeks.

11. Rejoinder if any, before the next date.

12. List on 5th October, 2021.

RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J AMIT BANSAL, J JULY 12, 2021 'pp'..