Disposed

Raj Kumar Ranjan v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Allahabad HC19 Jul 2018WRIA/14331/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The writ petition challenging a transfer order was disposed of. The court directed the petitioner to join the new post and allowed a limited window to approach the competent authority to raise representations regarding personal difficulties.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner directed to report to the new place; allowed to submit representation on hardship within two weeks of joining.

Raj Kumar Ranjan Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others — Service and Employment | Allahabad HC (2018)

¶1

Court No. - 58

¶2

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 14331 of 2018

¶3

Petitioner :- Raj Kumar Ranjan Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Shantanu Khare,Sr. Advocate Shri Ashok Khare Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶4

Hon'ble Ashwani Kumar Mishra,J.

¶5

While entertaining the writ petition following orders were passed in the matter on 4.7.2018:-

¶6

"Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the respondents.

¶7

Learned counsel for the petitioner states that Government Order dated 29.3.2018 clearly shows that where husband and wife both are in service under the Government, then all efforts should be made for granting them posting in the same place. Learned Standing Counsel prays for and is granted two weeks time to seek instructions in the matter.

¶8

Put up this case as fresh on 19.7.2018 before appropriate Bench."

¶9

Learned Standing Counsel has obtained instructions, according to which, petitioner is continuing at Mirzapur since 11.12.2009. Submission is that petitioner has completed more than 8 year, and as such, in terms of the transfer policy, he has been transferred. It is also stated that petitioner is an accused of Case Crime No.806 of 2013 under Section 409 IPC, and therefore, his continuance is otherwise not in public interest at the present place since the allegation relates to offence committed at the same place.

¶10

Admittedly, petitioner holds a transferable post and the transfer is an incidence of service. Petitioner has otherwise completed more than 8 year at the present place of posting. There is no malafide or violation of rules alleged. It further appears that petitioner's wife is not holding transferable post and in case transfer policy is construed in the manner, as is being suggested on behalf of the petitioner, then petitioner would never be transferred. This cannot be approved of. In such circumstances, no interference with order of transfer is called for.

¶11

In the facts and circumstances, however, it is provided that in case petitioner joins at the transferred place forthwith, pursuant to order of transfer, it shall be open for him to make a representation, highlighting his personal difficulty, as is raised

¶12

before this Court, before the authority competent, within a period of two weeks of his joining. In case such a representation is made, the authority concerned shall consider the same, in terms of the transfer policy and in accordance with law, by way of a reasoned order, within a further period of two months, thereafter.

¶13

With the aforesaid aforesaid observations/directions, this writ petition stands disposed of.

¶14

Order Date :- 19.7.2018 Ashok Kr.

Raj Kumar Ranjan v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Raj Kumar Ranjan v. State of U.P. 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

Ashok Kumar Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Surya Praksh Singh Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Tej Singh Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Surya Bali Singh Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Dinesh Chand and 29 Others Vs State of U.P. and 7 Others

Vikram Singh Vs State of U.P. and 5 Others