Dismissed

Anshul Kumar Sharma v. State of U.P. and 4 Others

Allahabad HC24 Aug 2021WRIA/9036/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This Single Judge Bench dismissed a writ petition challenging a transfer order moving a petitioner from Agra to Varanasi. The Court held that the order was an administrative decision based on exigency and much therefore, exercised jurisdiction under Article 226 to decline interference.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed with liberty to make representation to competent authority after joining the place of posting.

Anshul Kumar Sharma Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others — Service and Employment | Allahabad HC (2021)

¶1

Court No. - 2

¶2

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 9036 of 2021

¶3

Petitioner :- Anshul Kumar Sharma Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Awadh Behari Singh Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Manu Ghildyal

¶4

Hon'ble Suneet Kumar,J.

¶5

Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

¶6

Shri Abhishek Srivastava, learned counsel appearing for the second and third respondent, on instructions, submits that the impugned order dated 15 July 2021, transferring the petitioner from Dakshinanchal Vidyut Vitaran Nigam Ltd., Agra, to Purvanchal Vidyut Vitaran Nigam Ltd., Varanasi, has been passed by the third respondent, Managing Director, Dakshinanchal Vidyut Vitaran Nigam Ltd., Agra, in terms of the policy as the petitioner has put in 10 years of service at Aligarh. He further submits that the transfer order has been passed in administrative exigency and services of the petitioner is required at Varanasi.

¶7

Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the decision rendered in Ram Bharat Verma vs. State of U.P. and others , 2007 (25) LCD 1299 and Wasif Akhtar v. State of U.P. and others , 2001 (19) LCD 1275, wherein, it has been held that once an order of transfer is passed for personal reasons on compassionate grounds to a particular place, it could not be altered or changed unless there are very strong and exceptional reasons for accommodating another person, such order be not cancelled.

¶8

On specific query, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that no other person has been transferred in place of the petitioner. Further, it is not the case of the petitioner that the impugned order of transfer has been passed on malafide consideration or is in violation of any statutory provisions governing the service condition of the petitioner.

¶9

It is settled principle of law that transfer order is an administrative order and the same can be assailed either on the ground of malafide or the order being in teeth of statutory provisions. None of the grounds exist in the instant case. Merely because the petitioner was transferred within 20 days from the place of posting that would not mean that there is no administrative exigency in transferring the petitioner.

¶10

This Court in exercise of its extra ordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India declines to

¶11

interfere with the impugned order.

¶12

In view thereof, writ petition is dismissed with liberty to the petitioner to make representation before the competent authority against the impugned order after joining the place of posting raising his grievance.

¶13

Order Date :- 24.8.2021 Mukesh Kr.

Anshul Kumar Sharma v. State of U.P. and 4 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Anshul Kumar Sharma 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shyam Lal Vs State of U.P. and Others

Shri Ramesh Kumar Agarwal Vs Shri Naresh Kumar Agarwal and Another

Ashok Kumar Vs State of U.P. and Another

Indrawati Yadav Vs State of U.P. and 6 Others

Sharif Ahmad Vs State of U.P. and 6 Others

Daya Shankar Mishra Vs State of U.P and Others