DIMPLE SINGLA Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a Letters Patent Appeal directed against the order of the learned Single Judge dated 24/8/2001 passed in C.W.P. No. 4205/2001. By that order the learned Single Judge dismissed the Writ petition of the appellant holding that there was no infirmity in the action taken by the respondents in transferring the appellant to Pune. Brief facts giving rise to this appeal are as follows :- The appellant is married to an advocate who practise law at Chandigarh. She has a child of one and a half years. The appellant joined the Indian Army as a short service commissioned officer in the Judge Advocate General's Department on 8/3/1997. During the short span of four and a half years of her service career she is stated to have been transferred three times. On 27/9/1999 the appellant was posted as Staff Captain (Legal) in the Judge Advocate General's Department at New Delhi. After working against that post for a period of about loss than two years, the appellant was transferred to Headquarter Andhra Sub Area, Secunderabad, as Officer Incharge, Legal Cell , by order of the Military Secretary (MS 14 Branch) dated 21/5/2001. She was required to join her place of posting by 9/7/2001. As a consequence of the transfer, the appellant was given a movement order on 28/6/2001. Acting on the transfer order the appellant despatched her luggage to Secunderabad. On 6/7/2001, the date on which she was to leave for Secunderabad by Rajdhani Express at 8.00 P.M., she received a message from the Military Secretary, MS 14, cancelling her transfer to Headquarters Andhra Sub Area, Secunderabad. Thereafter, on 9/7/2001 the appellant received a fresh order, of posting dated 6/7/2001 requiring her to leave for Headquarters Southern Command, Pune. This change, according to the appellant, was brought about at the instance of the third respondent, Brig, P. Rajagopalan, Commander HQ, Andhra Sub Area, Secunderabad, which is evident from his letter to the Judge Advocate General dated 4/6/2001 The appellant being aggrieved by the aforesaid order cancelling her transfer to Headquarters Andhra Sub Area, Secunderabad, and the order transferring her to Pune, filed the writ petition claiming that the impugned action was arbitrary, unjust, unfair and discriminnatory. The learned Single Judge, as already noted, dismissed the writ petition. Not being satisfied with the order of the learned Single Judge, the appellant has filed, the instant Letters Patent Appeal.

(2.) We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant as also the learned Additional Solicitor General appearing for the respondents. In order to appreciate the controversy between the parties it is apposite to refer to the letter of the third respondent dated 4/6/2001 addressed to the Judge Advocate General on the subject of transfer of the appellant to Secunderabad. The letter reads as follows:-

(3.) The reservations of the third respondent with regard to the transfer of the appellant to Andhra Sub Area, Secunderabad, as Officer Incharge, Legal Cell, were sought to dispelled by the Judge Advocate General through his communication dated 21/6/2001; which reads as follows: