Allahabad High Court
Razia Begum vs State Of U P And 3 Others on 1 August, 2019
Bench: Ashwani Kumar Mishra
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 38
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 11353 of 2019
Petitioner :- Razia Begum
Respondent :- State Of U P And 3 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Ayub Khan
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Ashwani Kumar Mishra,J.
Learned counsel for the petitioner places reliance upon an order passed by this Court in Service Single No.19520 of 2019 ( Raj Bahadur Vs. State of U.P. and others) which was disposed of vide following orders passed on 18.7.2019:-
"Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing counsel appearing for the State-respondents.
The petitioner being aggrieved with the transfer order dated 10.07.2019, a copy of which is annexure 1 to the petition by which he has been transfered in public interest/administrative exigency from Sultanpur to Badaun is before this Court.
Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the impugned transfer order is patently bad in the eyes of law inasmuch as he is due to retire on attaining the age of superannuation on 28.02.2021 and has thus got less than two years to his retirement. It is contended that the case of the petitioner is perfectly covered by paragraph 11 (X) of the transfer policy dated 29.03.2018 which stipulates that persons on the verge of retirement should invariably not be transferred or should be accommodated at the place of their choice. It is also contended that the wife of the petitioner is undergoing treatment and consequently his transfer from Sultanpur to Badaun would impede the medical treatment.
Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and having perused the record what comes out is that the petitioner has indicated that he is due to retire on 28.02.2021 and has thus less than two years left to his retirement. A perusal of the transfer policy dated 29.03.2018, a copy of which has been filed as annexure 3 to the petition would also indicate that in paragraph 11 (x) of the said transfer policy, it has been provided that an endevour should be made of not transferring to persons who are on the verge of retirement and has got less than two years to his retirement and should be posted at the place of their choice in case there is no difficulty. However, this aspect of the matter is to be considered by the competent authority inasmuch as it is settled proposition of law that the transfer is an exigency of service and a person cannot be permitted to either choose a particular post for a particular district for his posting and transfer can only be interfered on certain legal grounds which have not been set forth in the instant writ petition.
Accordingly, taking into consideration the aforesaid facts, the writ petition is disposed of giving liberty to the petitioner to submit a fresh representation indicating the aforesaid facts and also drawing the attention of the authorities towards paragraph 11 (x) of the transfer policy dated 29.03.2018 to the respondent no. 2 within a period of a week from today. It is provided that in case such representation is submitted to the respondent no. 2 then respondent no. 2 shall proceed to decide the same by means of a reasoned and speaking order within next four weeks taking into consideration the paragraph 11 (X) of the transfer policy dated 29.03.2018.
Till the disposal of the representation, no coercive steps shall be taken against the petitioner."
This petition is also directed against the same order of transfer and the ground for challenging the order of transfer is also the same i.e. petitioner is left with less than two years to retire.
Since facts are identical, this writ petition is also disposed of in terms of the order dated 18.7.2019 passed in Service Single No.19520 of 2019.
Order Date :- 1.8.2019
n.u.
