india

HC dismisses plea of CISF constable seeking to extend posting in Delhi

Bench noted that that an ‘unlimited number of personnel of any force cannot be accommodated at Delhi’.

The Delhi High Court has dismissed the plea of a constable in Central Industrial Security Force (CISF), who wanted to extend his posting in Delhi, noting that an “unlimited number of personnel of any force cannot be accommodated at Delhi”.

A Bench of Justices Rajiv Sahai Endlaw and Amit Bansal said that in their tenure as judges adjudicating service matters, they had “noticed that once a personnel of any force is posted at Delhi, he/she does not want to leave Delhi and wants to perpetuate his/her stay at Delhi”.

“We have in several judgments held that exercise of discretion on sympathetic/compassionate grounds by the court in favour of such persons is always to the prejudice of others who are not before the court,” the Bench added.

“Accommodating one is always at the cost of another, who though may have been wanting to be posted at Delhi and whose circumstances also justify the same, is unable to be so posted owing to those already posted, by invoking medical/sympathetic grounds refusing to move out of Delhi,” it said.

The High Court’s remark came while rejecting the plea by the CISF constable who was posted in Delhi since 2011, seeking to perpetuate his posting at Delhi. The constable had challenged a recent order of his transfer to Tapovan in Uttarakhand.

The constable contended that as far back as 2015, he had been diagnosed with paranoid schizophrenia. He said his wife was diagnosed to be suffering from seizure disorder in 2016. He further said that his mother, who was residing with him, was also being unwell and having recently been hospitalised.

The High Court, however, asked the CISF to consider the documents filed by the constable in his petition to see whether a case for intervening with the transfer order is made out. “If the representation is not decided or decided against the petitioner, the petitioner shall not be entitled to approach the court,” the High Court clarified.

Source: Read Full Article