Dismissed

Jagdish Prasad v. State of Up and 2 Others

Allahabad HC17 Jul 2018SPLA/640/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Special Appeal was dismissed. The court held that courts do not interfere with transfer orders unless they violate statutes or are motivated by malafides or are arbitrary. A government transfer policy is a norm, not a statute, and does not restrain transfers required by administrative exigency.

What did the court decide?

The appeal was dismissed with liberty to agitate the cause before the competent authority.

Jagdish Prasad Vs State of Up and 2 Others — Service and Employment | Allahabad HC (2018)

¶1

Court No. - 21

¶2

Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL No. - 640 of 2018

¶3

Appellant :- Jagdish Prasad Respondent :- State Of Up And 2 Others Counsel for Appellant :- Ashok Kumar Pandey Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶4

Hon'ble Govind Mathur,J. Hon'ble Chandra Dhari Singh,J.

¶5

This appeal is before us to examine the correctness of the order dated 9th July, 2018 dismissing the petition for wait preferred by the appellant-petitioner giving challenge to the order passed by District Magistrate, Siddharth Nagar transferring him from one place to another.

¶6

Submission of learned counsel appearing on behalf of appellant-petitioner is that learned single Bench failed to appreciate that as per Government Policy an office bearer of the union cannot be transferred before expiry of term of two years from the date he became office bearers of the union concerned. In the case in hand, as per learned counsel, appellant-petitioner has not completed the term of two years from the date he was appointed as office bearer of the union. It is further submitted that other persons similarly situated, who are working at one station for last 20 years, they have not been disturbed.

¶7

Having considered the arguments advanced, we do not find any merit in this appeal. It is well settled that the Courts' are not required to interfere with the orders of transfer, unless otherwise those are in violation of statues or are outcome of malafides or shocking arbitrary. In the case in hand, allegation is with regard to the terms of transfer policy, the transfer policy is not a statute, but only the norms settled by the Government to ensure that no inconvenience be caused to the employee concerned. The transfer policy in no manner restrains the employer from making transfers to transfer the employees if administrative exigency so demands.

¶8

In view of whatever stated, we do not find any just reason to interfere with the order impugned. The appeal, hence, is dismissed.

¶9

Appellant-petitioner, however, is at liberty to agitate his cause before the authority competent if he is having any personal inconvenience by the transfer.

¶10

Order Date :- 17.7.2018 Prajapati

¶11

[Chandra Dhari Singh, J] [Govnid Mathur, J]

Jagdish Prasad v. State of Up and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jagdish Prasad v. State of Up and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ganga Ram Balmiki Vs Sunil Kumar Pandey and 4 Ors.

Lakshman Singh Vs District Inspector of Schools and Anr.

Suresh Babu Saxena Vs State of U.P. and 4 Ors.

The Committee of Management,Patel Smarak Inter College Vs State of U.P. and 3 Ors.

Uma Kant Shukla Vs District Inspector of Schools and 2 Ors.

Surya Prakash Singh Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others