Research › Search › Judgment

Delhi High Court · body

2007 DIGILAW 455 (DEL)

MAJOR (MS. ) SREEDEVI G. v. UNION OF INDIA

2007-03-01

G.S.SISTANI, SWATANTER KUMAR

body2007
SWATANTER KUMAR, J. ( 1 ) THIS is an application filed by the petitioner for expungement of certain observations of the court made in its order dated 22. 11. 2006. ( 2 ) THE petitioner had filed the writ petition in this court challenging the order dated 29th September, 2006 vide which she had been posted out of Delhi before completion of her normal tenure. The order of transfer was primarily challenged on two grounds i. e. (i) harassment to the petitioner by victimizing her by issuing the posting order and (ii) she was being posted out prior to completion of her normal tenure of three years and four months which also included the period of her six months attachment for false disciplinary action. This writ petition was dismissed by us vide above order wherein the court had also recorded as under:- "the petition suffers from the defect of falsehood", "in the earlier representation, it was on the ground of mother's illness and her treatment at delhi and "the petitioner has not approached the court with clean hands and true facts" ( 3 ) IN the application under consideration, the petitioner prays for expungement of the above remarks. During hearing, the respondents had produced the records which fact was noticed by us in our order. From the record file which we have again perused, in the representation dated 17th October, 2006, the petitioner had taken the following grounds:- 2. I would like to submit the following on the above quoted letter:- (a) Though a copy of the posting order is handed over to me the service number against my name is not that of mine which reflects either of the fact that - (i)The posting order may not be of mine as I have not completed my tenure in the station as per the ongoing policy or else (ii)An error. (b)It was already preplanned for my leave to bring my widowed elderly mother for medical treatment as I was not due for posting order. A requisition for compassionate ground posting for my mother's care itself was withheld only because to get my posting tenure over as it won't be entertained otherwise. (b)It was already preplanned for my leave to bring my widowed elderly mother for medical treatment as I was not due for posting order. A requisition for compassionate ground posting for my mother's care itself was withheld only because to get my posting tenure over as it won't be entertained otherwise. (c) It is added that I have been posted to this hospital on 21 Jun 2003 and during the tenure in Delhi I have been attached to COD Mumbai for 169 days on frivolous ground thus I have physically been present in the station for 2 years 9 months only. 3. In view of the above you are requested to take up the matter with the authority concerned and do the needful to keep the order of my posting in abeyance (if it is pertaining to me) till such time as how any other nursing officer is given the posting order till date, so that I can get settled down my various family problems as this order is very preterm and not expected to. " ( 4 ) ANOTHER fact that was examined by us from the record produced, is that vide letter dated 6th November, 2006, the representation of the petitioner was rejected and she was advised to proceed to her new unit. Vide same letter, she was also given liberty to make a representation for compassionate posting. For reason best known to the petitioner, neither she filed the order dated 6. 11. 2006 along with the petition nor she even made a reference of the same in her petition though the same was received by her on 14. 11. 2006. It was for these reasons that we had made the above observations. Now, it is argued on behalf of the applicant that she had no intention of withholding the order from the court and also that the order related to another representation and the petitioner believed that the order was not relating to her representation. We are not prepared to accept this contention even if the petitioner had received the order subsequent to the filing of the petition as certainly she had received the said order much prior to the first date of hearing in the present writ petition which was on 22nd November, 2006. We are not prepared to accept this contention even if the petitioner had received the order subsequent to the filing of the petition as certainly she had received the said order much prior to the first date of hearing in the present writ petition which was on 22nd November, 2006. Least that was expected of the petitioner was to make a mention of the said letter during the course of arguments as the writ petition itself related to her transfer/posting from Delhi. The remarks recorded by the Court are relatable to the record produced by the respondents before the court during the course of hearing and do not call for any alteration/expungement. It may be noticed that it was never the intent of the court that the authorities should draw any adverse inference against the petitioner from making these observations. We are hopeful that the authorities concerned would consider the representation for compassionate posting of the petitioner objectively, if any, made by the petitioner, in terms of the direction contained in their order dated 6th November, 2006. ( 5 ) WITH these observations, the application is dismissed while leaving the parties to bear their own costs.