Allowed

Chandra Bhushan v. State of Up through Principal Secretary Nagar Vikas Lucknow and 2 Others

Allahabad HC9 Sept 2019WRIA/13331/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court disposed of a writ petition challenging a transfer order of a Tax Assessment Officer under the U.P. Palika (Centralised) Services Rules, 1966. The court observed that the petitioner had not disputed the government's authority and confined the prayer to the representation filed regarding grievances, directing the authority to decide it within a reasonable time.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition is disposed of with an observation that the representation filed by the petitioner before the authority concerned may be considered and decided within a reasonable time period.

Chandra Bhushan Vs State of Up through… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Allahabad HC (2019)

¶1

Court No. - 3

¶2

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 13331 of 2019

¶3

Petitioner :- Chandra Bhushan

¶4

Respondent :- State Of Up Through Principal Secretary Nagar Vikas Lucknow And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Hausihla Prasad Mishra Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Pankaj Srivastava

¶5

Hon'ble Dr. Yogendra Kumar Srivastava,J.

¶6

Heard Sri H.P. Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Mata Prasad, learned Standing Counsel appearing for respondent nos.1 and 2 and Ms. Archana Srivastava, Advocate holding brief of Sri Pankaj Srivastava, learned counsel for respondent no.3.

¶7

The present petition seeks to challenge the order dated 08.08.2019 passed by the State Government whereby the petitioner who holds the post of Tax Assessment Officer has been transferred from Nagar Nigam, Meerut to Nagar Palika Parishad, Sikandrabad (Bulandshahar) on the same post.

¶8

Sri Mata Prasad, learned Standing Counsel submits that the petitioner holds the post of Tax Assessment Officer and his services are governed by the U.P. Palika (Centralised) Services Rules, 1966, and in terms of the said rules the State Government may transfer any officer of the centralised services one palika to other, and the transfer having been made in terms of the aforementioned rules, there is no illegality in the same.

¶9

Counsel for the petitioner has not disputed the fact that the services of the petitioner are governed by the U.P. Palika (Centralised) Services Rules, 1966 and that he holds a post which is transferable. It is also not the case of the petitioner that under the aforementioned rules the State Government is not empowered to transfer the petitioner from one palika to the

¶10

other or that the transfer order is based on mala fides .

¶11

In the light of the aforementioned facts counsel for the petitioner confines his prayer for consideration of his representation dated 09.08.2019 which is with regard to his grievances, by the authority concerned.

¶12

In view of the aforesaid no useful purpose would be served in keeping the petition pending.

¶13

Having regard to the facts of the case the writ petition is disposed of with an observation that the representation which is said to have been filed by the petitioner before the authority concerned may be considered and decided within a reasonable time period.

¶14

Order Date :- 9.9.2019 Shahroz

¶15

(Dr. Y.K. Srivastava,J.)

Chandra Bhushan v. State of Up through Principal Secretary Nagar Vikas Lucknow and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Chandra Bhushan v. State of Up through Principal Secretary Nagar Vikas Lucknow 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

Ram Ayodhaya Prasad Vs Presiding Officer Labour Court Ghaziabad and Another

U.P.S.R.T.C. Thru Its R.M. Vikasnagar Kanpur Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Mahaveer Vs Employees Compensation Commissioner and Another

Rohitash Singh Vs State of U P and 2 Others

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

Nagar Ayukt Nagar Nigam Kanpur Nagar Vs Sri Ganga Ram and Others