Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
R.S. Virdi vs Union Of India & Others Through on 9 January, 2012
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL PRINCIPAL BENCH, NEW DELHI O.A. No. 4040/2011 New Delhi, this the 9th day of January, 2012 HONBLE DR. K.B. SURESH, MEMBER (J) R.S. Virdi S/o Shri Gurmukh Singh Consulate General of India, Birmingham, United Kingdom. .. Applicant By Advocate: Shri Yash Pal Rangi. Versus Union of India & Others through: 1. The Foreign Secretary, Ministry of External Affairs, South Block, New Delhi. 2. The Joint Secretary (Administration) Ministry of External Affairs, South Block, New Delhi. .. Respondents By Advocate: Mrs. Priyanka Bhardwaj. ORDER (ORAL)
Heard both the counsel and also the departmental representatives, who have explained the matter.
2. The applicants 2nd and 3rd children are studying in 12th in Bermingham, UK. His 4th child is physically challenged and is undergoing a special course in sign language whereby he is expected to communicate more effectively and that will be completed by one year. Counsel for the applicant has pointed out that in various cases extensions had been granted up to one year and in some cases even beyond. But beyond one year, extensions had been granted in special cases only. Therefore, it need not to be looked into but it appears that generally one year extension is granted. It is pointed out and admitted by the respondents that the policy is changed to the effect that the tenure has been changed to 4 years instead of 3 years. Therefore, there cannot be any objections for the terms to continue for 4 years, i.e., till 2013.
3. But even if it is found that the one year extension is only to be granted from the end of the tenure, which is till today, it will be up to 09.01.2013 and on that day, obviously his two children, who are studying in 12th, would not be completing their course. But he undertakes and it is recorded that on that day, he is ready to be transferred out to India back and bear the risk of his children not completing their course or completing their course in India. The respondents have pointed out that there is a small issue in it, i.e. he should not ask for further extension. The applicant is agreeable for that and it is recorded that he would be transferred to India on 09.01.2013. Since this matter is a matter of discussion and the respondents pointed out that this may be done only on the medical ground of the child if at all, so it may not be seen as precedent for others. It is clarified that it is so and it cannot be seen as a precedent in any other case. Therefore, on consent, the following orders are issued:
(i) The applicant will be allowed an extension of one year, i.e. up to 09.01.2013 and on that day positively he shall be transferred out to India.
(ii) The applicant has specifically undertaken not to ask for any other extension and if he asks for it, it will not be granted.
(iii) The risk of being transferred out on 09.01.2013 shall be on the applicant alone with regard to the education and future prospects of his children.
4. O.A. is disposed of. No order as to costs.
(Dr. K.B. Suresh) Member (J) /jyoti