Allahabad High Court
Yogesh Kumar Constable 062141619 vs State Of U.P. Thru. Prin.Secy. ... on 9 July, 2021
Bench: Irshad Ali
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Court No. - 8
Case :- SERVICE SINGLE No. - 14152 of 2021
Petitioner :- Yogesh Kumar Constable 062141619
Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin.Secy. Home Lko. & Ors.
Counsel for Petitioner :- Dwijendra Nath Pandey
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Irshad Ali,J.
1. In view of COVID-19 pandemic, this case is being heard through video conferencing.
2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned ACSC for respondent - State.
3. By means of present writ petition, the petitioner is challenging the orders dated 01.07.2021 & 02.07.2021 (annexure 1&2 to the writ petition), whereby the petitioner has been transferred from District Bijnaur to Lucknow.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is suffering from serious ailment and as per policy dated 22.06.2017, in case there is some medical ailment to an employee, the same shall be taken care of while passing the order.
5. He further submitted that in regard to grievances raised in the present writ petition, the petitioner has already represented his case before respondent No.2 vide application dated 03.07.2021 which is lying pending and no order whatsoever has been passed till date. He requested that in case direction is issued for consideration of claim of the petitioner on the pending representation with a direction to consider the same and to pass appropriate order, ends of justice would be met.
6. On the other hand, learned ACSC submitted that in case claim of the petitioner is pending consideration before the respondents, the same shall be considered and appropriate order shall be passed within a reasonable period.
7. I have considered the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record.
8. In the opinion of this Court, the issue of transfer and posting has been considered time and again by the Hon'ble Apex Court as well as by this Court and entire law has been settled by catena of decisions. It is entirely upon the competent authority to decide when, where and at what point of time a public servant is to be transferred from his present posting. Transfer is not only an incident but an essential condition of service. It does not affect the conditions of service in any manner. The employee does not have any vested right to be posted at a particular place.
9. An employee holding a transferable post cannot claim any vested right to work at a particular place as the transfer order does not affect any of his legal rights and the Court cannot interfere with a transfer/posting which is made in public interest or on administrative exigency. In Gujarat Electricity Board Vs. Atmaram Sungomal Poshani; 1989 AIR 1433, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed as under:-
"Transfer of a Government servant appointed to a particular cadre of transferable posts from one place to the another is an incident of service. No Government servant or employee of public undertaking has legal right for being posted at any particular place. Transfer from one place to other is generally a condition of service and the employee has no choice in the matter. Transfer from one place to other is necessary in public interest and efficiency in the public administration."
In the case of Union of India vs. H.N. Kirtania; 1989 AIR 1774, the Hon'ble Apex Court has observed as under:-
"Transfer of a public servant made on administrative grounds or in public interest should not be interfered with unless there are strong and pressing grounds rendering the transfer order illegal on the ground of violation of statutory rules or on ground of malafide."
10. In the case of Union of India Vs. S.L. Abbas; 1993 SCR (3) 427, the Hon'ble Apex Court has observed that the Government instructions on transfer are mere guidelines without any statutory force and the Court or Tribunal cannot interfere with the order of transfer unless the said order is alleged to have been passed by malice or where it is made in violation of the statutory provisions.
11. In the case of State Bank of India Vs. Anjan Sanyal; Civil Appeal No.226 of 1997 decided vide judgment and order dated 12.04.2001, the Hon'ble Apex Court has held as under:-
"4. An order of transfer of an employee is a part of the service conditions and such order of transfer is not required to be interfered with lightly by a court of law in exercise of its discretionary jurisdiction unless the court finds that either the order is mala fide or that the service rules prohibit such transfer or that the authorities, who issued the order, had not the competence to pass the order.
(Emphasis supplied)."
12. In view of the above, without entering into merits of the case, this writ petition is finally disposed of with a liberty to the petitioner to file a fresh representation ventilating his grievances before the respondent No.2 within ten days from today. In case such a representation is filed, the same shall be considere and appropriate reasoned and speaking order shall be passed within a further period of six weeks from the date of production of a certified copy of this order.
Order Date :- 9.7.2021
Adarsh K Singh
