Allahabad High Court
Suresh Chandra Tripathi vs State Of U.P. And 3 Others on 9 July, 2019
Bench: Sunita Agarwal
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 36
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 9891 of 2019
Petitioner :- Suresh Chandra Tripathi
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Aseem Kumar Rai
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Pranjal Mehrotra
Hon'ble Mrs. Sunita Agarwal,J.
The challenge is to the transfer order dated 28th June, 2019, whereby the petitioner has been transferred from District Kannauj to the Head Office, U.P. Jal Nigam, Lucknow. The transfer order dated 28th June, 2019 has been modified on 1.7.2019 and the petitioner has been transferred from the Head Office to the office of the Executive Engineer, Construction Division, U.P. Jal Nigam, Jaunpur.
The first ground to challenge the aforesaid transfer orders is that the transfer is not in exigency of service rather it was passed on a complaint of one Neetu singh, the Ex-Gram Pradhan and on a letter written by the Minister, Labour and Employment, Coordination Department, U.P. dated 14.6.2019 to the Managing Director, Jal Nigam.
It is also submitted that the Joint Secretary, U.P. Government wrote a letter on 27th June, 2019 to the Managing Director, U.P., Jal Nigam, Lucknow to transfer the petitioner from Kannauj to elsewhere.
From these documents appended as Annexures nos. '1 to 4' to the writ petition, it is sought to be contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the transfer of the petitioner is on account of political pressure and as such is malafide and not in public interest.
Considering the said submissions of learned counsel for the petitioner, having gone through the letters appended with the writ petition as Annexures nos. '1 to 4', a pointed query was made by the Court to the learned counsel for the petitioner to disclose the source from which the petitioner got these letters.
No plausible reply could be given as to how the letters addressed to the Managing Director, U.P., Jal Nigam, allegedly written by the Minister and the Joint Secretary of U.P. Government, could be in possession of the petitioner. It is admitted that the petitioner did not get copies of these letters under R.T.I. Act.
In the said facts and circumstances, the veracity of the assertions of the documents appended with the writ petition being the basis for transfer of the petitioner from Kannauj to Lucknow, cannot be ascertained. The arguments of learned counsel for the petitioner that the transfer order dated 28.6.2019 is a result of political pressure, therefore, is found false.
The next submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the transfer is in contravention of the transfer policy dated 1st June, 2019.
A perusal of the Clause (2) and (5) of the transfer policy indicates that the officers of Group 'A' and 'B' are required to be transferred in another district, in case, they have completed three years of service and all transfers are to be made prior to 30th June, 2019.
In the case of the petitioner, there is no dispute about the fact that the petitioner has rendered three years of service in District Kannauj and he is a member of Group-'A' service.
Further, the transfer order has been passed on 28th June, 2019.
In the said admitted facts and circumstances of the case, no case of contravention of the transfer policy could be made out. The second argument of learned counsel for the petitioner of the transfer order being in contravention of the transfer policy is, therefore, found misconceived.
The writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed.
Order Date :- 9.7.2019
Brijesh
