HC SUKHBIR SINGH Vs. UOI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this writ petition, the petitioner assails the movement order dated 1st July, 2010 whereby he has been required to move from 103 Battalion of the Rapid Action Force presently at Delhi to his parent Battalion which is 127 Battalion Central Reserve Police Force and is currently located at Orissa. The writ petition is premised on the contention that the petitioner had submitted an application for voluntary retirement from his service dated 14th June, 2000 which has not been considered by the respondents. The contention is that, pending orders on his request for voluntary retirement, the movement shall work undue hardships to the petitioner. According to the writ petitioner, the resultant displacement of the petitioner's family would be unwarranted and consequently he has prayed for quashing of the order of movement in exercise of our extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

(2.) When the writ petition had come up before us on 7th July, 2010, on a prima facie consideration of the aforenoted submissions, we had directed that the movement order dated 1st July, 2010 to be kept in abeyance. The petitioner has, therefore, continued to remain at Delhi.

(3.) When the matter was taken up today, Dr. Ashwani Bhardwaj, learned counsel appearing for the respondents had made a submission that no application seeking voluntary retirement from service has been received from the petitioner. It is also pointed out that the petitioner was deployed at the Rapid Action Force for a fixed tenure of three years which has expired and his continuation at the said deployment is not possible or permissible. Learned counsel also pointed out that the petitioner has in these circumstances been directed to report back to his parent battalion wherefrom he was deployed at Delhi on a tenure basis.