Disposed

Namita Mishra v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Allahabad HC10 Feb 2021WRIA/1855/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition seeking a mandamus for timely decision on an inter-district transfer application, the High Court directed the Basic Education Board to decide the petition by a speaking order within two months, keeping in mind the petitioner's husband's posting with the Indian Air Force.

What did the court decide?

Writ in the nature of mandamus directing the Basic Education Board to decide the transfer application within two months via speaking order, considering the petitioner's husband's service.

Namita Mishra Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Allahabad HC (2021)

¶1

Court No. - 6

¶2

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 1855 of 2021

¶3

Petitioner :- Namita Mishra Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Sharad Kumar Srivastava Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶4

Hon'ble Ajay Bhanot,J.

¶5

Heard Sri Sharad Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents No.1 and 2 and Sri Santosh Kumar, learned counsel for the respondents No.3 and 4.

¶6

Sri Sharad Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner has made an application for inter-district transfer from DistrictShahjahanpur to District-Kanpur Nagar. The application of the petitioner has not been decided till date. It is further submitted that the husband of the petitioner is in the Indian Air Force, who has posted at Kanpur Nagar.

¶7

The only prayer made by Sri Sharad Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the petitioner is that application of the petitioner may be decided within a stipulated period of time.

¶8

Per contra, Sri Santosh Kumar, learned counsel for the respondents No.3 and 4 submits that the petitioner does not have any indefeasible right to be posted at a particular place. The application for transfer has to be considered by the competent authority keeping the institutional interest and as per the existing transfer

¶9

policy and relevant provisions of law in the matter. However, in his usual fairness he submits that the authorities are under an obligation of law to decide the application of the petitioner within a reasonable period of time.

¶10

Learned counsel for both the parties agree that no useful purpose will be served by exchanging the pleadings and keeping this writ petition pending before this Court. With consent of parties, the writ petition is being disposed of finally.

¶11

Without going into the merits of the case, the matter is remitted to the respondent no.3-Basic Education Board through its Secretary, Prayagraj.

¶12

A writ in the nature of mandamus is issued commanding the respondent no.3-Basic Education Board through its Secretary, Prayagraj, to execute the following direction:

¶13

The respondent no.3-Basic Education Board through its Secretary, Prayagraj, shall decide the application of the petitioner for her transfer from DistrictShahjahanpur to District-Kanpur Nagar, by a speaking order within a period of two months from the date of production of a computer generated copy of this order downloaded from the official website of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, along with a copy of fresh application.

¶14

The computer generated copy of such order shall be

¶15

self attested by the party concerned. The concerned Court/Authority/Official shall verify the authenticity of such computerized copy of the order from the official website of High Court Allahabad and shall make a declaration of such verification in writing.

¶16

The respondent no.3-Basic Education Board through its Secretary, Prayagraj shall consider the fact that the Indian Air Force is all India service and it is only in few instances when the wife, who is working in the State, and the husband, who is working in all India, can be posted at one place. This factor shall be kept in mind while deciding the matter.

¶17

With the aforesaid directions, the writ petition is disposed of finally.

¶18

Order Date :- 10.2.2021 Ashish Tripathi

Namita Mishra v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Namita Mishra 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

Kanhai and 2 Others Vs Consolidation Officer and Another

Ram Kunvari(Deceased) and 5 Others Vs State of U P and 6 Others

Ram Samujh and Another Vs Deputy Director of Consolidation and 2 Others

Jalil Ahmad Vs the Deputy Director of Consolidation and Another

Ram Swaroop Vs D.D.C. and Others

Sada Hussain (Since Deceased) and 4 Others Vs Deputy Director of Consolidation and 16 Others