Partly allowed

Pramod Kumar and 14 Others v. State of U.P. and 4 Others

Allahabad HC5 Oct 2021WRIA/265/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Court dismissed petition for inter-district transfer without five years service for most petitioners due to lack of exceptional exigency. Petition for one petitioner with a disabled child was disposed of expeditiously on consent.

What did the court decide?

Petition dismissed qua petitioners 1 to 10 and 12 to 15. Qua petitioner no. 11, petitioner directed to consider transfer case on merits within four weeks.

Pramod Kumar and 14 Others Vs State of… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Allahabad HC (2021)

¶1

Court No. - 2

¶2

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 265 of 2021

¶3

Petitioner :- Pramod Kumar And 14 Others Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Navin Kumar Sharma Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Mohd Shere Ali

¶4

Hon'ble Suneet Kumar,J.

¶5

Heard Sri Navin Kumar Sharma, Advocate, for petitioners; and, learned Standing Counsel and Smt. Archana Singh, Advocate, for the respondents.

¶6

Petitioners (15 in numbers) are the Assistant Teacher appointed under handicapped quota. Petitioners have not put in five years continuous service but seek inter-district transfer under exceptional circumstances and exigency.

¶7

So far as petitioners no. 1 to 10 and 12 to 15 are concerned, on specific query learned counsel for the petitioners is unable to show from the pleading and material brought on record that any exceptional exigency exists so as to relax the rigor of five years.

¶8

In view thereof, petition, being devoid of merits, is dismissed qua petitioners no. 1 to 10 and 12 to 15 .

¶9

So far as petitioner no. 11 is concerned, it is pleaded in para-38 that his daughter, Vaishnavi Mishra, is suffering from incurable disease, autism spectrum disorder. Material in support thereof has been filed.

¶10

Smt. Archana Singh, learned counsel appearing for respondents, submits that the case of the petitioner n0. 11 would be considered in the light of the decision rendered by this Court in Divya Goswami and others Vs. State of U.P. and others 2020 (11) ADJ 137 subsequently modified by order dated 03.12.2020.

¶11

In view thereof, on consent of learned counsels for the parties, the petition is disposed of qua petitioner no. 11 directing the second respondent, Secretary, U.P. Basic Education Board, to consider the case of the petitioner no. 11 on merits for inter-district transfer expeditiously, preferably within four weeks from the date of filing certified copy of this order along with copy of the representation and the material in support of exceptional exigency/circumstances.

¶12

Order Date :- 5.10.2021 P. Sri.

Pramod Kumar and 14 Others v. State of U.P. and 4 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pramod Kumar and 14 Others v. State of U.P. and 4 Others

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

Naved Ahmed Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

M/S Anandilal Lalpuria Vs U.P. Jal Nigam and Another

M/S Krishna Gopal Vashistha Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Sanjay Singh and 25 Others Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Raj Kumar Singh and 12 Others Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Hasan Mehdi and 4 Others Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others