Allowed

Sailash Ram v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Allahabad HC31 Aug 2022WRIA/10920/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court disposed of the writ petition against the refusal to transfer the petitioner. It granted liberty to move a fresh representation, directing the authority to decide the matter considering relevant orders within eight weeks.

What did the court decide?

Liberty granted to move a fresh representation within two weeks; authority directed to decide the representation within eight weeks.

Sailash Ram Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 32

¶2

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 10920 of 2022

¶3

Petitioner :- Sailash Ram Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Ram Narain Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶4

Hon'ble Karunesh Singh Pawar,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the State.

¶6

By means of this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for a writ of mandamus directing respondent No.2 to consider para 11(VII) of G.O. No.3/2018/1/3/96 - Ka - 4- 2018 dated 29.3.2018 and transfer the petitioner from District Sonbhadra to District Prayagraj, with a further direction to respondent No.2 to decide the representations dated 21.6.2021 and 17.6.2022 as contained in Annexures 6 and 8 to the petition.

¶7

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in view of Para 11(vii) of Government Order dated 29.3.2018, under Aspirational Districts Scheme of Government of India, in eight districts, all the posts of such districts were directed to be filled by the employees and after two years, an option shall be taken from the employees who have completed two years of service in those Aspirational Districts and shall be transferred as per option exercised by them. It is submitted that by the current transfer policy dated 15.6.2022 issued by the State Government, particularly Clause 4(iv), samething has been reiterated.

¶8

Learned Standing Counsel on the basis of written instructions received by him from Director, Bal Vikas Seva Evam Pushtahar, U.P. Lucknow which is taken on record has submitted that

¶9

against nine sanctioned posts of Bal Vikas Pariyojana Adhikari on which the petitioner is also posted seven posts are filled up and two posts are still vacant. It is submitted that since two posts are still vacant, it is not possible to transfer the petitioner somewhere else.

¶10

It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that in compliance of the Government Order issued by the Chief Secretary, State of U.P., the petitioner was posted to district Sonbhadra from district Prayagraj. He immediately joined and is working there since 25.9.2018 and as of now, about four years period has passed. In case sufficient number of employees could not be posted at district Sonbhadra in Aspirational Districts Scheme of Government of India, no fault can be attributed to the petitioner nor this can be a ground for respondent No.2 to flout and disobey the order passed by the Chief Secretary, State of U.P..

¶11

The submission of learned counsel for the petitioner carries weight.

¶12

Learned counsel for the petitioner, at this stage, submits it would be suffice in case the representation of the petitioner is decided by the competent authority, to which learned Standing Counsel has no objection.

¶13

In view of the above, the petition is finally disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to move a fresh representation to respondent No.1 within two weeks from today. In case such a representation is submitted within the aforesaid stipulated time, respondent No.1 shall consider the case of the petitioner in view of the Government Order dated 29.3.2018 (Annexure

¶14

No.1) as also in view of the transfer policy dated 15.6.2022, and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law, by a reasoned and speaking order expeditiously and preferably within the next eight weeks.

¶15

Order Date :- 31.8.2022 kkb.

¶16

Digitally signed by KRISHNA KUMAR BARANWAL Date: 2022.08.31 16:44:26 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Sailash Ram v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sailash Ram v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Asha Devi Vs State of U.P. and Another

Vivek Kumar and Another Vs State of U P and 2 Others

Santosh Kumar Singh Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Brijesh Kumar Singh Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Mohammad Shafi Vs State of U.P. and 3 Ors.

Ram Chandra Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others