DR. VIVEK KUMAR MATHUR vs UNION OF INDIA AND ORS

Judgment text excerpt

$~69 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 8536/2025, CM APPLs. 36984/2025 & 48388/2025 DR. VIVEK KUMAR MATHUR .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Ankur Chhibber, Mr. Anshuman Mehrotra and Mr. Nikunj Arora, Advs. versus UNION OF INDIA AND ORS .....Respondents Through: Mr. Siddhartha Shankar Ray, CGSC with Ms. Smritika Kesri, Adv. for UOI CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C. HARI SHANKAR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE OM PRAKASH SHUKLA ORDER (ORAL) % 11.09.2025 C. HARI SHANKAR, J. 1. The main grievance of the petitioner is that he is the sole caregiver of his aged father who is 90 years old, and that the place at which he has been posted does not have sufficient hospital facilities to take care of his father, though Mr. Siddhartha Shankar Ray, learned CGSC for the respondents disputes this contention. 2. Mr. Ray submits that all the posts sought by the petitioner are filled and there is no suitable place where the petitioner can be posted. He also underscores the legal position that there is no vested right for the petitioner to seek posting at a place where he can take care of his W.P.(C) 8536/2025 Page 1 of 4 Signature Not Verified Signed By:PREETI Signing Date:17.09.2025 16:43:56 father. 3. Legally speaking, Mr. Ray is right. The policy of the CAPF1 contains a provision whereunder, if the spouse or the child of an officer is unwell, that could constitute a basis for the officer to choose a place of posting. No such dispensation is provided in the case of parents of an officer. Though this may be a hard provision, it is understandable to the extent that, with the ascendancy in the careers of the officers, parents would also get older, and it is possible that if officers were permitted to choose a place of posting based on the condition of their parents, it would become very diffi