Disposed

Prithivi Pal Patel v. State of U.P. and 5 Others

Allahabad HC18 Jun 2019WRIA/9635/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court did not quash the transfer order but directed the respondent authority to consider the petitioner's fresh representation in light of an existing transfer policy, accounting for his medical condition and impending retirement, and to pass a reasoned order within four weeks.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner permitted to file a fresh representation; Respondent No. 3 directed to consider it within four weeks and pass a reasoned order.

Prithivi Pal Patel Vs State of U.P. and 5… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Allahabad HC (2019)

¶1

Court No. - 4

¶2

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 9635 of 2019

¶3

Petitioner :- Prithivi Pal Patel Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 5 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Amit Kumar Singh Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶4

Hon'ble Pankaj Bhatia,J.

¶5

The present petition has been filed for the following reliefs:-

¶6

"a) Issue a writ order or direction in the nature of Certiorari to quash the transfer order dated 31.5.2018 passed by the respondent no.4 and order dated 11.6.2019 passed by the respondent no.6.

¶7

b) Issue a writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent no.2 and 5 to decide the representation of the petitioner dated 25.5.2019 and 31.5.2019 within short stipulated period."

¶8

Learned Counsel for the petitioner has argued that the petitioner is posted as a Head Jail Warder in District Jail, Mirzapur and is going to retire in the month of March 2021. He also claims that the petitioner is suffering from diseases and is being treated at S.S. Hospital, Banaras Hindu University, Varanasi and his operation has already been conducted at Varanasi. The argument of the petitioner is that the State Government has issued a policy decision in terms of the order dated 29.3.2018 which makes a provision that any employee who is likely to be retired within the next two years should be considered for transfer to his home town. Thus in sum and substance, the submission of the petitioner is that the petitioner should not have been transferred and his transfer is contrary to the order dated 29th March 2018.

¶9

The counsel for the respondent on the other hand informs the Court that the petitioner has already relieved in terms of the transfer order dated 31.5.2018.

¶10

Considering the averments made at the bar, I direct the respondent no. 3 to consider the cause of the petitioner in the light of the order dated 29th March, 2018 expeditiously. The petitioner is permitted to file a fresh representation before the respondent no. 3 within a period of two weeks from today and in the event such a representation is filed alongwith a certified copy of this order, the respondent no. 3 shall proceed to take a decision thereupon and pass a reasoned order considering the transfer policy dated 29th March 2018 and the case of the petitioner. The said exercise is to be undertaken by the

¶11

respondent no. 3 expeditiously, preferably within a period of four weeks from the date of production of a certified copy of this order in accordance with law.

¶12

The writ petition is disposed off.

¶13

Order Date :- 18.6.2019 SR

Prithivi Pal Patel v. State of U.P. and 5 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Prithivi Pal Patel v. State of U.P. and 5 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

L and T Finance Co. Ltd. Vs State of U.P.

Moti Lal Goyal Vs Nagar Nigam Ghaziabad Thru Commissioner and 2 Others

Raj Kumar Madan Vs Salim Khan and Another

Dr. Raghuvansh Mani Tripathi Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

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

Om Prakash Gautam Vs State of U.P. and 6 Others