Dismissed

Atul Srivastava v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC30 Sept 2021WRIA/10525/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A Group-C employee challenged his transfer order under Article 226, arguing lack of requisite concurrence and frequent transfers. The court held the authority was competent and noted that transfer policies are not justiciable absent mala fides, dismissing the petition.

What did the court decide?

Petition dismissed; request to stay departmental consideration rejected as court became functus officio.

Atul Srivastava Vs State of U.P. and Another — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Allahabad HC (2021)

¶1

Court No. - 35

¶2

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 10525 of 2021

¶3

Petitioner :- Atul Srivastava Respondent :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Petitioner :- Kamlesh Kumar Tiwari Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶4

Hon'ble Vivek Agarwal,J.

¶5

Heard Sri Atul Dayal, learned Sr. Advocate assisted by Sri K.K. Tiwari, for the petitioner and Sri Pranav Ojha, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State.

¶6

This petition has been filed by the petitioner who was admittedly working as Group-C employee being aggrieved of this transfer order dated 15.07.2021 passed by Additional Transport Commissioner (Administration), Uttar Pradesh transferring petitioner from Agra to Farrukhabad.

¶7

Sri Atul Dayal, learned Sr. Advocate for the petitioner submits that as per the policy for transfer as contained in memo dated 29.03.2018, Clause-9 provides that if transfer of an employee is affected upto 31st May, for the Transfer Session 2018-19 to 2021-22, then competent authority is authorized to carry out such transfers, but if transfer is to be made after 31st May, then it is provided that an Authority authorized to transfer an employee will have to take concurrence of his Authority, which is one rank superior to him before transferring a Group-C employee.

¶8

Sri Dayal, learned Sr. Advocate for the petitioner submits that since, transfer has been affected on 15.07.2021, therefore, Transport Commissioner's concurrence was necessary and Additional Transport Commissioner was not authorized to carry out transfer orders.

¶9

Sri Dayal further submits that petitioner is a victim of frequent transfers. He was working at Jhansi, from where he was transferred on 31.05.2018 to Agra, but he was relieved from Jhansi on 31.10.2019 and joined at Agra on 05.11.2019 after expiry of about 19-20 month's time, he has been again transferred from Agra to Farrukhabad. It is submitted that persons who are at Agra for a period exceeding the period of stay of the petitioner have not been disturbed. On these grounds indulgence is sought in the matter of transfer.

¶10

Sri Pranav Ojha, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State on instructions submits that vide Government Order No.7/2021-No.-1/3/96-Ka-4-2021 dated 15.06.2021, earlier O.M. dated 29.03.2018, on which reliance has been placed by the learned counsel for the petitioner has been amended and it has been provided that now cut off date for normal transfers in place of 31st May, will be 15th July. Therefore, since the Government Order dated 15.06.2021 has amended the date for normal transfer, no indulgence is required to be shown in the matter of not seeking concurrence of an authority superior to the Additional Transport Commissioner. Sri Ojha, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State submits that otherwise Additional Transport Commissioner is authorized to carry out transfers of Group-C employees. Therefore, on this ground of not taking concurrence, no indulgence is required.

¶11

It is submitted that as far as period of stay of the petitioner at Agra is concerned, it is evident that after transfer from Jhansi on 31.05.2018, petitioner managed to continue at Jhansi upto 31.10.2019 for over a period of 1-1/2 years and, therefore, if he continued at Jhansi on his own for the reasons which have not been explained in the petition and he cannot say that this tenure

¶12

at Agra has been cut-short. It is further submitted that transfer is an exigency of service and petitioner cannot claim parity in the matter of transfer that an employee working at Agra, from a prior date has not been transferred but petitioner has been transferred.

¶13

After hearing learned counsel for the parties and going through the record so also the instructions furnished by Sri Pranav OJha, which are taken on record, first ground of challenge that Additional Transport Commissioner was not competent is, admittedly, not available to the petitioner.

¶14

As far as second ground of curtailing his tenure at Agra is concerned, transfers are affected as per the exigency of service and only grounds to challenge an order of transfer are allegation of mala fide or infraction of some rule or regulation. Even infraction of a transfer policy is not a ground to challenge the transfer order, inasmuch as, transfer policies are not justiciable.

¶15

Thus, when tested on this touchstone, there are no allegations of mala fide on the Additional Transport Commissioner, nor he has been impleaded as a party in name alleging any mala fides in transferring the petitioner and, therefore, in the light of the law laid down by Supreme Court in case of N.K. Singh Vs. Union of India and others (1994) 6 SCC 98 . No ground for interference is made out. Petition fails and is dismissed.

¶16

At this stage, Sri Dayal, learned Sr. Advocate for the petitioner submits that petitioner has already moved a representation to the Departmental Authorities for considering case for cancellation of his transfer. He submits that dismissal of this petition be not allowed to come in way of consideration of his representation.

¶17

As far as this prayer is concerned, it is for the departmental authorities to take a call and court after dismissing the petition on its own merit has become functus officio and cannot show any indulgence in the matter of decision on a pending representation.

¶18

Order Date :- 30.9.2021 Ashutosh

Atul Srivastava v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Atul Srivastava v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

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

Shiv Sagar and 7 Ors. Vs State of U.P. and 3 Ors.

Rang Nath Dubey Vs Union of India and 3 Others

Harinaryan Lal Srivastava Vs State of U.P. and 6 Ohters

Arun Kumar Tiwari and 4 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Sunil Kumar Sharma Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others