Allahabad High Court
Ram Niranjan Mishra vs State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief ... on 19 April, 2023
Bench: Pankaj Bhatia
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Court No. - 17
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 2853 of 2023
Petitioner :- Ram Niranjan Mishra
Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Nagar Vikas And 3 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- D.K. Singh Chauhan,Prabhat Kumar
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Rishabh Kapoor
Hon'ble Pankaj Bhatia,J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Samir Om, learned counsel for the respondent.
Present petition has been filed challenging the order dated 06.04.2023 whereby the petitioner has been transferred from Amethi to Lucknow on administrative ground in public interest.
Learned counsel for the petitioner argues that the respondents have issued a policy on 30.06.2022 wherein in Clause 4(vii) it is provided that in respect of employees in Class - C post and whose two years are left for retirement, the consideration of their request to be posted at the district of their choice except the home district shall be considered wherever possible.
In the light of the said submission as contained in Clause 4(vii), counsel for the petitioner argues that as less than two years are left for superannuation of the petitioner, the petitioner could not have been transferred. He places reliance on the judgment of this Court in the case of Union of India v. Central Administrative Tribunal, Lucknow; (2023) 1 UPLBEC 167 wherein this Court considered the provision of a circular of the Railway Board which was to the following effect:
"Officers due for retirement within the span of two years should normally not be disturbed from the present posting."
On the interpretation of the said clause as contained in the circular, the Court was of the view that a case was made out in favour of the petitioner therein.
Shri Samir Om, learned counsel for the respondent on the basis of the instructions argues that the transfer which has been effected includes as many as 45 employees including the petitioner, the same is on administrative grounds, and also on account of the fact that the project on which they were working is no more in existence and there is no need of so many employees at the place of posting.
He also argues that Clause 4(vii) only gives a liberty in favour of the employee to seek a transfer at the place of his choice if less than two years are left in superannuation. He further argues that even in terms of Clause 4(vii), there is a clear stipulation that the request shall be considered wherever possible, thus, there is no right vested in the employee by virtue of Clause 4(vii) of the policy dated 30.06.2022.
Considering the submission made at the Bar and on perusal of the transfer order, it is clear that the same is on administrative grounds. The rights pleaded by the petitioner virtue of policy dated 30.06.2022 cannot be accepted as the same only gives a right for moving a request for being posted at the district of choice except home district where less than two years are left; it does not create any vested right in favour of the employee to continue where he is working, which has to be decided based on administrative exigencies.
The judgment relied upon by the counsel for the petitioner would be of no avail as the Court was considering the provision of a circular which is distinct and different from the provision as contained in Clause 4(vii). Thus, no case for interference is made out.
However, the petitioner would be at liberty to file an application in the light of Clause 4(vii) before the authority concerned which shall be considered in accordance with law.
The writ petition is accordingly disposed off.
Order Date :- 19.4.2023
nishant
