Pravindra Singh vs State Of U P And 3 Others
2021 Latest Caselaw 9502 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 

?Court No. - 33
 

 
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 9092 of 2021
 

 
Petitioner :- Pravindra Singh
 
Respondent :- State Of U P And 3 Others
 
Counsel for Petitioner :- Anoop Kumar Srivastava
 
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
 

 
Hon'ble Ashwani Kumar Mishra,J.

Petitioner is aggrieved by an order of transfer dated 14.07.2021, whereby Petitioner has been sent from Ghaziabad to Lucknow.

The order is assailed on the ground that the Petitioner has worked for only 5 years and that persons with longer length of functioning at one station have been allowed to continue. It is also stated that the policy of transfer has been breached, as more than 20% employees have been transferred. With reference to averment made in paragraph 17 and 18, it is stated that petitioner's son is suffering from serious ailment and is being treated by a doctor at Ghaziabad.

Learned Standing Counsel has produced written instructions, according to which the petitioner continued for 19 years in Ghaziabad out of his total service of 24 years. It is further urged that Petitioner's continuance in the same district is contrary to transfer policy. It is also stated that there are 126 employees in the cadre and only 22 have been transferred, which is less than 20%.

Learned counsel for the petitioner places reliance upon the judgment of this Court in Dharmendra Kumar Saxena vs. State of U.P. and others; (2013) 3 UPLBEC 2356 and with reference to paragraphs 19, 29, 34, 35 and 42 submits that where transfer is in violation of the policy, specific reasons have to be given.

Petitioner admittedly holds a transferable post and transfer is an incident of service. Law is settled that unless the transfer violates any provision of law or is otherwise shown to be malafide, no interference with it is warranted. Challenge made to the order accordingly fails.

In the facts of the case, this Court finds that there is no violation of transfer policy, inasmuch as petitioners working in the district is for more than 19 years, which is beyond the permissible length of service allowed for an employee in the district concerned. The judgment in the case of Dharmendra Kumar Saxena (supra) has, therefore, no application.

In the facts of the case it is, however, provided that if the petitioner joins pursuant to the order of transfer within two weeks, he shall be at liberty to represent in the matter before the authority concerned and such representation shall be dealt with in accordance with law, expeditiously.

Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of.

Order Date :- 4.8.2021

Pkb/