Disposed

Rameshwar Singh v. the State of U.P. and 4 Others

Allahabad HC25 Jul 2018WRIA/14472/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition challenging transfer from Lucknow to Gonda. Petitioner was actually attached at Varanasi since 2014. Court found no rule violation or malafide. Dismissed transfer challenge but allowed representation for better medical facility connectivity.

What did the court decide?

Transfer challenge dismissed; petitioner allowed to file representation within two months for posting with better medical facility or Delhi connectivity.

Rameshwar Singh Vs the State of U.P. and 4 Others — Service and Employment | Allahabad HC (2018)

¶1

Court No. - 58

¶2

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 14472 of 2018

¶3

Petitioner :- Rameshwar Singh Respondent :- The State Of U.P. And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Vijay Gautam,Arvind Tripathi Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶4

Hon'ble Ashwani Kumar Mishra,J.

¶5

This petition is directed against an order dated 12.03.2018; whereby, petitioner has been transferred, with immediate effect, from Lucknow to Gonda.

¶6

A supplementary affidavit has been filed today, which would go to show that while petitioner was posted at Lucknow, he was attached in the concerned Office in the Food Cell at Varanasi on 07.01.2014 and the petitioner is continuing at Varanasi ever since then.

¶7

The order is challenged on the ground that petitioner's wife is a patient of cancer and that, his daughter is also suffering from mental illness. Submission is that petitioner's transfer is not warranted in such circumstances.

¶8

Petition is opposed by the learned standing counsel.

¶9

This Court finds that petitioner has already been accommodated; in as much as, he has been allowed to remain attached at Varanasi on his request since January, 2014. Petitioner has already completed more than 4 years at Varanasi. He, otherwise, holds a transferable post. In such circumstances, no interference with the order of transfer is called for, particularly, as neither any rule is shown to have been violated, nor any allegation of mala fide exists. Challenge laid to the order of transfer, therefore, fails.

¶10

However, in the facts and circumstances of the case, noticed above, it is provided that in case petitioner, joins forthwith pursuant to the order of transfer, it shall be open for him to make an appropriate representation in respect of his grievance for being posted at some place which offers better medical facility or connectivity with Delhi (petitioner's wife is being treated by the cancer experts at Delhi). Such representation shall be considered within a further period of two months from the date of representation.

¶11

With the observation, aforesaid, this petition stands disposed of.

¶12

Order Date :- 25.7.2018 Amit Mishra

Rameshwar Singh v. the State of U.P. and 4 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rameshwar Singh v. the State of U.P. and 4 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

Raj Kumar Sharma Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Dharmveer Singh Vs State of U.P. and 4ORS.

Kapil Kumar Singh Vs Union of India and 3 Others

Sajjan Singh Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Kuved Raj Babu Vs State of U.P. and Another

Ajay Arora Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others