Bhausaheb Palghadmal v. Union Of India & ORS

$~8 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 6067/2015 and CM No. 11020/2015 (stay) BHAUSAHEB PALGHADMAL .....

Petitioner Through: Ms Jyoti Singh, Senior Advocate with Mr V.Mohan and Ms Tina Bajwa, Advs.

versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS ..... Respondents Through: Ms Ripu Daman Bhardwaj, CGSC and Mr T.P. Singh, Adv for UOI Mr S.S. Sejwal, Law Officer, CRPF

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE DEEPA SHARMA

O R D E R

% 01.07.2015 The grievance of the petitioner is that he ought to be retained in Pune, where he is currently posted. However, vide signal communication dated 17.04.2015, he is directed to report to 150 Batallion, Chhattisgarh.

The respondents today produced the copy of an order of the directive contained in a signal communication dated 26.06.2015, which states that the petitioner's request to continue in the present place of posting, i.e., Pune has been acceded to and the order originally directed him to report to the next posting at 150 Batallion on 25.08.2016.

The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that having regard to the acute medical condition of the petitioner's daughter, he may be permitted to make a representation having regard to the subsequent developments during the interregnum and that if request for further deferment for up to 6 months is made, the same may be favourably considered.

It is open to the petitioner to make a representation, if so advised having regard to the later developments with respect to the medical conditions and progress of his daughter well before date. He has now been directed to report to 150 Batallion on 25.08.2016. The representation, if made, sometime in April, 2016, shall be decided and communicated to the petitioner well before the said date and in any event within two weeks of receipt of the representation. The writ petition is disposed of.

S. RAVINDRA BHAT, J DEEPA SHARMA, J JULY 01, 2015 bg