Allahabad High Court
Chandan Singh vs State Of U.P. Thru ... on 12 July, 2022
Bench: Alok Mathur
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Court No. - 8
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 2762 of 2018
Petitioner :- Chandan Singh
Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru Prin.Secy.Rural Engineering Deptt.And Ors.
Counsel for Petitioner :- Birendra Kumar Yadav
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Alok Mathur,J.
1. Heard Sri Birendra Kumar Yadav, learned counsel for petitioner as well as learned Standing counsel.
2. By means of present writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the order of transfer dated 30.06.2017 along with order dated 19.09.2017.
3. It is submitted by learned counsel for petitioner that by means of transfer order dated 30.06.2017 the petitioner who is working on Class -IV post in the Rural Engineering Services and has been transferred from Barabanki to Lucknow. He challenged the said order on the ground that he petitioner being a Class-IV employee cannot be transferred outside the district. In this regard, the petitioner has approached this Court on the earlier occasion by filing a writ petition being Writ Petition No. 20284 (SS) of 2017 which was disposed of by means of order dated 31.08.2017 giving direction to the respondents to consider and decide the representation of the petitioner and in the meanwhile interim protection was granted that he shall not be relieved in case he has not already been relieved.
4. The representation of the petitioner has been duly considered and decided by Director-Cum-Chief Engineer, Rural Engineering Department, Lucknow thereby he had considered all the grievance of the petitioner and stated that order of transfer is as per transfer policy and hence the representation has been rejected. The said order dated 19.09.2017 has been assailed before this Court by means of present writ petition.
5. It is also noticed that as an interim measure, this Court by means of order dated 31.01.2018 had provided that "till the next date of listing operation of the impugned order shall remain stayed. The transfer order shall not be given effect to." In pursuance to the said order, the petitioner is continuing to work at Barabanki. It is noticed that the petitioner was transferred by means of annual transfer. The currency for which is only for one year and that order has been stayed by this Court and on the strength of the interim order, the petitioner is continued to work at Barabanki for the last four years. It is noticed that the representation of the petitioner has been duly considered and decided by the respondents.
6. The only ground urged before this Court is that the said order of transfer is in violation of guidelines and policy issued by the State Government.
7. Learned Standing Counsel submits that guidelines and policy issued by the State Government for time to time are for the guidance of the authorities concerned while making annual change or transfer. The guideline or policy do not confer any right of the petitioner. In this regard he has placed reliance before this Court a judgment in the case of Somesh Tiwari Vs. Union of India and others, 2009 (2) SCC 592.
8. In light of the aforesaid facts and also considering that on the strength of the interim order, the petitioner is already working in Barabanki for last four years, this Court does not find any infirmity either with the order of transfer or with the order passed by Director-Cum-Chief Engineer, Rural Engineering Department, Lucknow dated 19.09.2017. No other ground has been urged before this Court. There is no merit in the case. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. The interim order is vacated.
9. However, while considering the transfer of the petitioner, the respondents shall taken into account that he petitioner is working on Class-IV post and as far as possible he should be transferred within the same district.
(Alok Mathur, J.)
Order Date :- 12.7.2022
Ravi/
