Disposed

Avdhesh Kumar Singh v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Allahabad HC8 Sept 2020WRIA/5680/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A marketing inspector suspended pending departmental inquiry sought a transfer to Agra due to family medical needs. The High Court directed the respondent authority to consider his representation within two months without expressing an opinion on the merits.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the respondent authority to decide the pending representation regarding the petitioner's transfer within two months. No opinion expressed on merits.

Avdhesh Kumar Singh Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others — Service and Employment | Allahabad HC (2020)

¶1

Court No. - 35 Case :- WRIT - A No. - 5680 of 2020 Petitioner :- Avdhesh Kumar Singh Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Upendra Upadhyay Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶2

Hon'ble Vivek Varma,J.

¶3

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents.

¶4

The petitioner is a Marketing Inspector in the Food and Safety Supply Department and was earlier posted at Agra.

¶5

By an order dated 13.4.2020, the petitioner was transferred to District Shahjahanpur. The petitioner did not join at the transferred place and as such, he was suspended on 21.4.2020. Thereafter, by order dated 5.6.2020, the suspension order was revoked by respondent no. 2 and petitioner was again transferred to District Jhansi. However, a departmental proceeding was initiated against him. According to the petitioner, he has joined at District Jhansi on 8.6.2020.

¶6

It is the case of the petitioner that his father is aged about 70 years and his mother is aged about 65 years and both are not keeping well and they were living with the petitioner at Agra and were also undergoing treatment at the same place. It is also submitted that the son of the petitioner is a T.B. patient and is also undergoing treatment at Agra. It is, therefore, submitted that he may be transferred to District Agra. In this regard, he has submitted a representation dated 24.6.2020 (Annexue-5) before the respondent no. 2.

¶7

Learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents submitted that the representation of the petitioner will be considered by respondent no. 2, in accordance with law.

¶8

In view of above, this writ petition is disposed of with the direction to the respondent no. 2 to decide the pending representation made by the petitioners within a period of 2 months from the date of receipt of copy of this order. It is made clear that the court has not expressed any opinion on merit of the case.

¶9

In view of above terms, the writ petition is disposed of.

¶10

Order Date :- 8.9.2020 Ravi Prakash

Avdhesh Kumar Singh v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Avdhesh Kumar Singh v. State of U.P. and 3 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

Smt. Aneeta Devi Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Smt. Kanti Devi Vs Union of India, Dept. of Northern Railway New Delhi and Another

Om Prakash Gupta Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Urmila Devi Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Gajanan Dubey Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Akash Kumar Singh Vs Union of India through Its General Manager, Ministry of Railway, and 2 Others