Devi Prasad vs State Of U.P. & 2 Others
2017 Latest Caselaw 1744 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 

?Court No. - 4
 

 
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 27636 of 2017
 

 
Petitioner :- Devi Prasad
 
Respondent :- State Of U.P. & 2 Others
 
Counsel for Petitioner :- Sunil
 
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
 

 
Hon'ble Pradeep Kumar Singh Baghel,J.

The petitioner is a class IV employee. He has challenged the order dated 26.5.2017, whereby he has been transferred from Allahabad to Camp Office, Lucknow.

It is contended on behalf of the petitioner that a class IV employee ordinarily should not be transferred out of zone. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that transfer order does not show that it has been passed either on administrative ground or in public interest. Lastly, learned counsel has drawn attention of the Court to paragraph 15 of the writ petition wherein it is averred that father of the petitioner has medical condition.

I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned standing counsel.

It is a trite law that the transfer is an exigency of service and the Courts do not ordinarily interfere in the matter of transfer except on the ground of malafide or violation of the statutory rules. Reference may be made to the judgements of the Supreme Court in the cases of Union of India and others v. S.L. Abbas, (1993) 4 SCC 357; Shilpi Bose (Mrs.) and others v. State of Bihar and others, 1991 Supp 2 SCC 659; and, N.K. Singh v. Union of India and others, (1994) 6 SCC 98. No such ground exists in the present case.

In so far as personal difficulty of the employee is concerned, the Supreme Court in the case of Gujarat Electricity Board and another v. Atmaram Sungomal Poshani, reported in (1989) 2 SCC 602, has held that if the employee has any genuine difficulty, he may make representation to the authority concerned.

In view of the above, the petitioner is granted liberty to make representation before the second respondent within a week. In the event any such representation is made, the second respondent shall consider and pass appropriate order in accordance with law expeditiously preferably within two months from the date of communication of the order. Till disposal of his representation, the transfer order in so far as the petitioner is concerned, shall be kept in abeyance.

With the above observations, the writ petition stands finally disposed of. No order as to costs.

Order Date :- 22.6.2017

SNT/