Dismissed

Dhroov Chaudhary v. Union Of India and 3 Others

Allahabad HC17 Nov 2022SPLA/699/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this intra-court appeal, the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad dismissed the appellant's challenge against the Single Judge's order upholding the cancellation of a railway transfer. The court held that since divorce proceedings established the parties were living separately when the transfer was sought based on working couple grounds, the authorities were correctly justified in viewing the

What did the court decide?

The intra-court appeal was dismissed; the impugned judgment of the Single Judge dismissing the writ petition was affirmed.

Dhroov Chaudhary Vs Union Of India and 3 Others — Property and Title | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 29

¶2

Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL No. - 699 of 2022

¶3

Appellant :- Dhroov Chaudhary Respondent :- Union Of India And 3 Others Counsel for Appellant :- Dharmendra Kumar Pandey Counsel for Respondent :- A.S.G.I.

¶4

Hon'ble Manoj Misra,J. Hon'ble Vikas Budhwar,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the appellant; Sri Shesh Mani Mishra for the respondents; and have perused the record.

¶6

This intra court appeal is against the judgment and order of the learned Single Judge dated 06.09.2022 passed in Writ-A No.11868 of 2022 by which the writ petition of the appellant seeking quashing of the order dated 04.02.2022 has been dismissed.

¶7

The relevant facts of the case are that on 27.02.2017 the petitioner (the appellant herein) sought inter railway transfer on working couple ground. The transfer request was accepted and transfer order was passed. Subsequently, a complaint was received from which it appeared that the appellant had been living separately from his wife which, later, resulted in a divorce and, thereafter, he has married another girl. Upon examining the complaint, when it was found that on the date when request for transfer on working couple ground was made the couple were not living together but had separated, the transfer order was cancelled. Challenging the order cancelling the transfer order, Writ-A No.16783 of 2021 was filed, which was disposed off, vide order dated 24.11.2021, by permitting the petitioner (the appellant herein) to make a representation in respect of his grievances before the appropriate authority. Pursuant to the order of the writ court dated 24.11.2021, the appropriate authority by order dated 04.02.2022 rejected the representation of the petitioner (appellant herein), which was challenged in Writ-A No.11868 of 2022.

¶8

The learned Single Judge found that in the Family Court, Agra the petitioner (the appellant herein) and his wife had filed for divorce by mutual consent under Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act wherein they had made a joint statement that they had been living separate from November, 2016. Upon noticing this aspect, the concerned authority had rejected the representation of the petitioner (appellant herein) on the ground that if the appellant had been living separate since November, 2016, as was claimed before the Family Court, Agra, how could

¶9

the appellant move an application in the year 2017 for transfer on working couple ground. The authority opined that the transfer was obtained by fraudulent misrepresentation. Learned Single Judge found that from the record it was established that in the divorce proceedings a specific ground was taken that the parties had been staying separate since November, 2016 therefore there existed no good reason to interfere with the order impugned in the writ petition. Consequently, the writ petition was dismissed by the order impugned in this appeal.

¶10

The learned counsel for the appellant has questioned the order of the learned Single Judge on the ground that the divorce had taken place much after the order of transfer and therefore on the date of transfer they were a working couple. The subsequent development should not have been taken as a ground to annul the order of transfer passed earlier.

¶11

We do not agree with the above submission of the learned counsel for the appellant because the purpose of working couple being placed at one place is that they may be able to reside together. If they were not residing together and were living separately, as appear from their stand taken in the divorce proceedings, the authorities were justified in taking the view that there was misrepresentation on the part of the appellant to seek transfer on working couple ground.

¶12

In such circumstances, we do not find a good reason to interfere with the order of the learned Single Judge. The appeal is dismissed .

¶13

Order Date :- 17.11.2022 AKShukla/-

¶14

Digitally signed by ANIL KUMAR SHUKLA Date: 2022.11.18 17:40:43 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Dhroov Chaudhary v. Union Of India and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dhroov Chaudhary v. Union Of India 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

Harishankar Chaurasia Vs State of U P and 2 Others

Lal Mani Yadav Vs State of U P and 2 Others

Anil Kumar Yadav Vs State of U P and 2 Others

Lavkush Chaubey Vs State of U.P. and 6 Others

Const. No. 563 Civil Police (Dismissed) Munendra Pal Singh Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Mithilesh Kumar Singh and Another Vs Assistant Ragistrar and 3 Others