Rajendra Prasad v. Union Of India & ANR

$~12.

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 1800/2016 and CM APPL. 7701/2016, 9906/2016 RAJENDRA PRASAD ..... Petitioner Through: Mr. Siju Thomas, Advocate with Ms. Shilpa M. George and Mr. Rohit Adlakha, Advocates versus UOI & ORS.

..... Respondents Through: Ms. Manisha Agrawal Narain, Advocate with Mr. Nishant Yadav, Dy. JAG, ITBP.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE HIMA KOHLI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR

O R D E R

% 05.04.2016 1.

Pursuant to the order dated 17.03.2016, counsel for the petitioner states that the petitioner has been given access to the ITBP Headquarters at the CGO Complex, Lodhi Road, New Delhi, and has been reporting for duty with effect from the same date. He, however, states that so far, the respondents have not issued an Identity Access Card to the petitioner. 2.

As for the petitioner's pending representation for VRS submitted to the respondents on 14.12.2015, counsel for the respondents states on instructions that if granted two weeks' time, the respondents shall be in a position to decide the said representation under written intimation to the petitioner.

WP(C) 1800/2016 Page No.1 of 2

3.

Till the respondents take a decision on the pending VRS application submitted by the petitioner, he shall continue to remain posted at the ITBP Headquarters at New Delhi. If the respondents reject the petitioner's VRS application, he shall be entitled to assail the transfer order dated 03.02.2016 as also the rejection order.

4.

Till the respondents intimate their decision to the petitioner, he shall not be displaced from the government accommodation being occupied by him.

5.

The petition is disposed of alongwith the pending applications. HIMA KOHLI, J SUNIL GAUR, J APRIL 05, 2016 rkb/ap WP(C) 1800/2016 Page No.2 of 2