Allahabad High Court
Smt Sadhna Dubey vs Union Of India And 3 Others on 29 February, 2024
Author: Vivek Kumar Birla
Bench: Vivek Kumar Birla
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:36310-DB
Court No. - 29
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 2567 of 2024
Petitioner :- Smt Sadhna Dubey
Respondent :- Union Of India And 3 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Om Narain Tripathi,Vineet Kumar Singh
Counsel for Respondent :- A.S.G.I.,Rajesh Tripathi
Hon'ble Vivek Kumar Birla,J.
Hon'ble Donadi Ramesh,J.
1. Shri H.N. Singh, Senior Advocate assisted by Shri Abhishek Dwivedi, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Rajesh Tripathi, learned counsel for the respondent.
2. This writ petition has been filed seeking following relief:-
"(i) Issue a suitable writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned judgment and order dated 23.01.2024 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Allahabad Bench, Allahabad in Original Application No.330/716 of 2022 (Smt. Sadhna Dueby Vs. Union of India and Others) and the impugned order dated 03.08.2022 passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Incharge, Navodaya Vidyalaya Samiti, Lucknow as well as the impugned orders dated 01.08.2022 and 26.07.2022 passed by the Deputy Commissioner (Karmik), Navodaya Vidyalaya Samiti, Noida, Gautam Buddha Nagar (Annexure Nos.1, 2, 3 and 4 to the writ petition).
(ii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents not to give effect to the impugned orders referred to above and stay all further proceedings consequent thereon during the pendency of the writ petition.
(iii) Issue a suitable writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to permit the petitioner to work as Store Keeper in Jawahar Navodaya Vidyalaya, Baruwa Sagar, Jhansi and not to interfere with her peaceful working and pay her salary, month to month, if and when, the same falls due."
3. Submission of learned counsel for the petitioner while challenging the impugned order and the transfer order is that the petitioner is aged about 56 years and was transferred from Farrukhabad to Jhansi on the ground that her spouse is Traffic Inspector in railways and is on non-transferable post. Therefore, her transfer order has wrongly been passed and she is entitled to continue on the ground of spouse category.
4. Per contra, submission is that this fact has been ignored by the learned Tribunal and the impugned order has been passed only on the ground that she is continuing at Jhansi for last two decades and the maximum period in this respect is 15 years and thereafter she cannot claim to remain posted at one place, even in the spouse category. It is next submitted that Lakhimpur Khiri is not a hard station as being claimed by the petitioner.
5. We have considered the submissions and perused the record.
6. On perusal of record we find that even in the list annexed at page No.106 of the paperbook, district Lakhimpur Khiri within the Lucknow region is not mentioned and is therefore not a hard station. The distance from Jhansi to Lakhimpur Khiri is 440 Kms only. The husband of the petitioner herein is on non-transferable post in railways and she had admittedly continued for more than 20 years on this post. She was transferred vide order dated 03.08.2022 and her representation was rejected vide order dated 26.07.2022 after considering all the factors. It is about one and a half years have already passed after the transfer orders has been passed and admittedly she had not joined on the transferred post as interim order was granted by the learned Tribunal.
7. We do not find any legal infirmity in the order impugned herein or in the transfer policy. The settled law is that the court should be slow in interfering in transfer matters as it is a policy matter.
8. We find that the learned Tribunal has rightly observed that she has out numbered the adequate years required for a public servant to be in a place and balance of convenience remains in favour of others who also deserves to serve at this place.
9. We therefore, find no good ground to interfere in the orders impugned herein. The petition is devoid of merits and is accordingly, dismissed.
Order Date :- 29.2.2024
A Gautam
