Dismissed

Mahendra Kumar Dubey v. State of U P and 2 Others

Allahabad HC13 Oct 2020WRIA/5717/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Single Judge of Court No. 83 dismissed the PIL filed by Mahendra Kumar Dubey challenging his transfer from Allahabad to Azamgarh. Relying on Shashi Dutt Pandey and Section 9(3) of the U.P. Basic Education Act, the court held that inter-district transfer is permissible despite district cadre restrictions.

What did the court decide?

Impugned transfer order from Allahabad to Azamgarh dated 13.01.2020 was upheld and the petition dismissed.

Mahendra Kumar Dubey Vs State of U P and 2… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Allahabad HC (2020)

¶1

Court No. - 83

¶2

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 5717 of 2020 Petitioner :- Mahendra Kumar Dubey Respondent :- State Of U P And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Rajendra Prasad Mishra,Dinesh Kumar,Radha Kant Ojha (Senior Adv) Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Arun Kumar

¶3

Hon'ble Ajay Bhanot,J.

¶4

Sri Arun Kumar, learned counsel for the respondents submits that the petitioner has not joined any post since 2013. The respondent Board shall file an affidavit as to why an employee who has virtually abandoned his service the Board has failed to take any appropriate action in accordance with law.

¶5

The petitioner has assailed the transfer order dated 13.01.2020 passed by the Secretary, U.P. Basic Shiksha Parishad, Prayagraj transferring the petitioner from Allahabad to Azamgarh.

¶6

Sri Radha Kant Ojha, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Dinesh Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is an employee of the district cadre Allahabad. He cannot be transferred to the district outside of Allahabad.

¶7

Various arguments have been advanced by Sri Radha Kant Ojha, learned Senior Counsel claiming fault lines in the judgment of learned Division Bench.

¶8

Per contra, Sri Arun Kumar, learned counsel for the respondent Board calls attention to various provisions in U.P. Basic Education Act and the law laid down by a Division Bench of this Court in Shashi Dutt Pandey Vs Baleshwar Tyagi, reported at 1990 (2) UPLBEC 905. The relevant provision in which the emphasis were placed are extracted here under:

¶9

"Transfer of Employees.-- (1) On and from the appointed day every teacher, officer and

¶10

other employees serving under a local body exclusively in connection with basic schools (including any supervisory or inspecting staff) immediately before the said day shall be transferred to and become a teacher, officer or other employee of the Board and shall hold office by the same tenure, at the same remuneration and upon the same other terms and conditions of service as he would have held the same if the Board had not been constituted and shall continue to do so unless and until such tenure, remuneration and other terms and conditions are altered by the rules made by the State Government in that behalf. Provided. . . . . . . . . . under the Board. (Omitted as not relevant) Provided. . . . . . . . . . . accordingly. (Omitted as not relevant)

¶11

(3) Notwithstanding anything In sub-section (1), any person referred to therein, who becomes an employee of the Board shall be liable to be transferred from the school or from the local area In which he was employed immediately before the appointed day to any other school or Institution belonging to Board or : as the case may be to any other local area at the same remuneration and on the same other terms and conditions of service as governed him immediately before such transfer until such tenure, remuneration and other terms and conditions are altered by the rules referred to in subsection (1). Provided. . . . . . . . . . consent. (Omitted as not relevant)."

¶12

The learned Division Bench after constituting the aforesaid provision shall be persuaded by the arguments that the employees cannot be transferred from one district to another district by holding thus:

¶13

"(3) Sub-Section (3) of Section 9 of the Act is a complete answer to the submission made by the learned counsel for the appellant. It clearly provides that after the appointed day, any teacher, officer or an employee of a Zila Parlshad, who becomes an employee of the Board, can be transferred from one local area to another local area. Therefore, the transfer of the appellant from ballla to Gonda is clearly permissible under the provisions of the Act by which he is governed."

¶14

I find that the case is covered by the law laid down in Shashi Dutt Pandey (supra).

¶15

I am bound by the law laid down by the learned Division Bench.

¶16

The writ petition is dismissed.

¶17

Order Date :- 13.10.2020/Pravin

Mahendra Kumar Dubey v. State of U P and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mahendra Kumar Dubey 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ved Prakash Garg Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Dr. Akhilesh Gupta Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Hemant Kumar Singh Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Satyendra Kumar Chaudhary Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Shripal Singh Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Smt. Sheela Devi Vs State of U.P. and Another