Allahabad High Court
Shailesh Kumar Shukla vs State Of U.P.Thru.Prin.Secy. ... on 25 March, 2021
Bench: Irshad Ali
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Court No. - 17
Case :- SERVICE SINGLE No. - 8880 of 2021
Petitioner :- Shailesh Kumar Shukla
Respondent :- State Of U.P.Thru.Prin.Secy. Medical & Health & Ors.
Counsel for Petitioner :- Jaibind Singh Rathour,Krishna Pathak
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Irshad Ali,J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State-respondents.
The case set-forth by learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner has been transferred from the office of Chief Medical Officer, Shrawasti to the office of Chief Medical Officer, Kheri but after more than one and a half year, he has been sought to be relieved vide order dated 4.3.2021, which has been passed by the respondent No.2 in violation of the transfer policy for the year 2019-20 which provides for immediate transfer on issuance of the transfer order.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has further referred order of this Court dated 11.11.2016 passed in Writ Petition No.26462 (S/S) of 2016, which reads as under:-
"Heard learned counsel for parties.
All the writ petitions have been clubbed together as the issue involved in these petitions is the same as to whether the authority was justified in relieving the petitioners after two years of the transfer order having been passed. The transfer order in all cases were passed in the year 2014, inspite of it, on account of administrative exigencies, the need for adequate number of personnel at Lucknow, which is the State capital, they could not be relieved. Normally considering the lapse of time the appropriate course for the respondents was to re-consider the matter and pass a fresh order of transfer as has been held by this Court in the judgment dated 6.07.2016 passed in writ petition no. 15148 (SS) of 2016 which has been followed by a co-ordinate bench in writ petition no. 15961 (SS) of 2016, therefore only for this reason while granting liberty to the respondents to have a fresh look at the matter and pass a fresh order expeditiously say within a period of 2 weeks, the impugned orders are hereby quashed.
All the writ petitions stand disposed of in the aforesaid terms."
On the basis of the aforesaid order being passed by this Court, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the impugned relieving order of the petitioner is not only in violation of the transfer policy for the year 2019-20 which provides for immediate transfer on issuance of the transfer order, but such type of exercise has been condemned by this Court in identical writ petition vide order dated 11.11.2016 (supra).
Learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel has submitted that as per transfer policy for the year 2019-20 which provides for immediate transfer on issuance of the transfer order, but sometimes due to administrative exigencies those persons could not be relieved with promptness.
Be that as it may, since there is statutory prescription for relieving of an employee immediately after the transfer order and this Court has condemned the delayed relieving of the employees working in different departments in various orders being passed by this Court in identical matter, therefore, the instant writ petition is disposed of finally quashing the impugned orders dated 29.6.2019 and 4.3.2021, so far as it relates to the petitioner, however, with liberty to the opposite parties to pass a fresh order of transfer, if exigency of service so requires, strictly in accordance with law and the transfer policy, particularly considering the aspect of mid session.
Order Date :- 25.3.2021
Gautam
