Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 0, Cited by 0]

Delhi High Court

Sh.Vinod Kumar Dewangan vs Govt. Of India & Ors. on 3 February, 2012

Author: Anil Kumar

Bench: Anil Kumar, J.R.Midha

*             IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+                              WP(C) No.560/2012

%                         Date of Decision: 03.02.2012

Sh.Vinod Kumar Dewangan                                        .... Petitioner

                       Through Nemo


                                  Versus

Govt. of India & Ors.                                    .... Respondents

                       Through Mr.R.V.Sinha & Mr.R.N.Singh, Advocates

CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE J.R.MIDHA


ANIL KUMAR, J.

* A passover was prayed on behalf of learned counsel for the petitioner.

After passover no one is present on behalf of the petitioner. Learned counsel for the respondents, Mr.R.V.Sinha, Advocate, who appears on advance notice has produced a copy of the relieving order dated 2nd February, 2012 stipulating that the petitioner of 2 BN/RPSF/Gorakhpur has been spared by the Company Commander "D" Coy./2 BN/RPSF/Gorakhpur (now at Mohammadpur Khala, Distt. Barabanki (U.P.) for U.P. Assembly Election) from 2 BN/RPSF/Gorakhpur to RPF/SECR/Bilaspur in the afternoon of 02.02.2012 vide Movement Order No.2 BN/D/T&P/17/2012-144. WP (C) 560/2012 Page 1 of 3

A copy of the communication dated 2nd February, 2012 addressed to the Standing Counsel for Railways, Mr.R.N.Singh, is produced which is taken on record.

The plea of the petitioner is that after undergoing the training for seven months, the petitioner was appointed as a Constable at RPSF and was transferred to 2 BN, RPSF, Gorakhpur to SECR, RPF, Zone Railways, Bilaspur. The petitioner further contended that by order dated 3rd January, 2011, Senior Commandants/Commandant, 2 BN, Railway Protection Special Force, Rajahi Camp, Gorakhpur, however, directed that the petitioner should not be relieved since the petitioner is under suspension. The petitioner has produced a copy of the final order dated 11th January, 2011 imposing a punishment of withholding of his increment for a period of two years with cumulative effect and his suspension was also revoked with immediate effect. However, this suspension period w.e.f. 13th August, 2010 to 11th January, 2011 was directed to be treated as suspension.

In the circumstances, the only relief prayed by the petitioner was to direct the respondents to issue relieving order to the petitioner pursuant to transfer order dated 1st September, 2010.

Since the relieving order dated 2nd February, 2012 has been issued, a copy of which has also been produced before this Court, the WP (C) 560/2012 Page 2 of 3 grievance of the petitioner does not survive. The petition, in the circumstances, is disposed of in view of the relieving order dated 2nd February, 2012.

ANIL KUMAR, J.

J.R.MIDHA, J.

February 03, 2012 vk WP (C) 560/2012 Page 3 of 3