news details |
|
|
| HC holds transfer as 'an incidence and condition' of service | | Pre-mature transfer of SE BRTF challenged | | | Jammu, July 21 (JNF) : Responding to petition filed by Superintending Engineering, working as Commandant 50 BRTF, Justice JP Singh of J&K High Court Jammu Wing today dismissed the petition with the observation that transfer is an incidence and condition of service and any employee aggrieved, whereby is required, ordinarily to approach his employer in the first instance, to seek redressal of his grievance against the transfer because transfers are justifiable only in rare and exceptional cases which the present case is certainly not the one. Justice JP Singh of J&K High Court Jammu Wing after hearing Sr Adv BS Salathia with Adv Ashish Sharma appearing for the petitioners whereas ASGI KK Pangotra appearing for the Union of India and Sr Adv AV Gupta assisted by Adv Rajat Gupta appearing for the private respondents dismissed the petition with the observation that transfer is an incidence and condition of service. Court further observed that the petitioner has hastened to approach this Court rather than waiting for consideration of his representation by the Directorate against his transfer, within two days of his moving the representation, he filed this petition in this High Court. In the petition the petitioner S Mohan Singh Sohal challenging the transfer order issued by Directorate General Border Roads dated June 8, 2012, the petitioner is Supt Engineer, who was working as Commandant 50 BRTF since October, 2010 was ordered to be transfer to Head-Quarter CE (P) Arunank in place of Suresh Gupta who was to replace the petitioner. Pertinently the petitioner represented against his transfer to the Directorate General Border Roads vide representation June 11, 2012 seeking completion of his tenure of two years at his present place of posting and has challenged the same and seeking quashment of the transfer order on various grounds.In the reply the official respondents stated that number of complaints were received against the petitioners unprofessional conduct and the then Chief Engineer Project Sampark recommended his transfer, approaching the Director General Border Roads in this behalf vide communication March 21, 2011. Justice JP Singh after considering the arguments of both the sides, observed that Court do not find any justification to entertain the petition and leave it to the Directorate General to pass appropriate orders on the petitioner's representation, as warranted in the interests of the administration and keeping the policy guidelines on transfers. With these observations Court dismissed the petition. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
STOCK UPDATE |
|
|
 |
| BSE
Sensex |
 |
| NSE
Nifty |
|
|
| |
CRICKET UPDATE |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
