Allahabad High Court
Alok Awasthi vs State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. ... on 1 August, 2019
Bench: Abdul Moin
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Court No. - 20
Case :- SERVICE SINGLE No. - 20846 of 2019
Petitioner :- Alok Awasthi
Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Medical & Health & Ors.
Counsel for Petitioner :- Yogesh Kumar Mishra,Piyush Pathak,Suyash Dwivedi
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Abdul Moin,J.
Heard Sri Piyush Pathak, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing counsel appearing for the State-respondents.
The petitioner being aggrieved with the transfer order dated 28.06.2019, a copy of which is annexure 1 to the petition is before this Court.
Learned counsel for the petitioner while seeking to challenge the impugned order of transfer contends that the petitioner is a physically handicapped person and in terms of the transfer policy dated 29.03.2018, an exception has been made so far as transfer of physically handicapped person is concerned inasmuch as it is provided that the physically handicapped persons should only be transferred for certain exceptional reasons which have not been set forth while issuing the impugned order of transfer. In this regard, learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn the attention of this Court towards the handicapped certificate, a copy of which is annexure 3 to the petition.
On the other hand, Learned Additional Chief Standing counsel argues that the transfer is an incidence 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.
Having heard the learned counsels for the contesting parties and having perused the records it clearly comes out that transfer is an incidence of service and it is the prerogative of the employer to post any employee at any place for his choice. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Novartis India Ltd. Vs. State of West Bengal and Ors. reported in 2009 (3) SCC 124 has categorically held that the transfer order should not be interfered except when it is passed contrary to the provision of statutory rule or settlement. In the instant case, there is no averment or argument that the transfer order has been passed contrary to the provisions of statutory rule.
At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner has already submitted a representation for the redressal of his grievances to the respondent no. 2 vide his representation dated 01.07.2019, a copy of which is annexure 4 to the petition and prays that the respondent no. 2 be directed to decide the same within specified time. To the said prayer, learned Standing counsel has no objection. As such, without interfering with the impugned order of transfer dated 28.06.2019, the present petition is disposed of with the direction to the respondent no. 2 to decide the pending representation of the petitioner dated 01.07.2019, a copy of which is annexure 4 to the petition within a period of four weeks the date of receipt a certified copy of this order.
It is made clear that the Court has not interfered with the impugned order of transfer but the order of transfer would be dependent upon the decision that is taken on the representation of the petitioner.
Order Date :- 1.8.2019
Pachhere/-
