Disposed

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

Allahabad HC30 Aug 2022WRIA/12303/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged a transfer order during his daughter's Class XII board exams. Court stayed the order pending a fresh representation within two weeks, directing authorities to consider the exam stage and O. Karuppa guidelines before deciding within eight weeks.

What did the court decide?

Transfer order stayed for 10 weeks pending fresh representation to be decided within 8 weeks considering daughter's exams.

Santosh Kumar Singh Vs State of U.P. and 4… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 32 Case :- WRIT - A No. - 12303 of 2022 Petitioner :- Santosh Kumar Singh Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Santosh Kr. Singh Paliwal Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶2

Hon'ble Karunesh Singh Pawar,J.

¶3

Heard Shri R.K. Ojha, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Shri Santosh Kr. Singh Paliwal, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Additional C.S.C. for the State.

¶4

By this petition the petitioner has challenged the writ of certiorari seeking quashing of the impugned transfer order dated 29.06.2022 (Annexure No. 1) passed by respondent no. 2 so far as it relates to the petitioner.

¶5

Short submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that petitioner's daughter is studying in class-XII and her board examination are due in March/April 2023. It is further submitted that in case the petitioner is compelled to join at the transfer place the study of his daughter who is in class-12 which is a very crucial stage in a student's life would be seriously affected.

¶6

It is further submitted that the impugned transfer order is violative of clause-5(iii) of the Transfer Policy of the State which is on record.

¶7

In support of his argument learned Senior Advocate has placed reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court reported in the case of "State of Timil Nadu Vs. O. Karuppa the van, 1994 0 Supreme (SC)146" , wherein the Supreme Court considering the fact that the children of the employee were studying and the transfer was in the mid academic term directed the authorities concerned not to transfer the incumbent employee till the end of the current academic year.

¶8

Learned Standing Counsel though has opposed the petition, however, could not dispute the fact that the transfer is in the mid academic term. He further undertakes that the representation of the petitioner shall be considered sympathetically and appropriate decision shall be taken shortly.

¶9

In view of the above, the petition is disposed of granting liberty to the petitioner to file a fresh representation before opposite party no. 2 within a period of two weeks from today. In case the representation is filed within a period of stipulated time,

¶10

respondent no. 2 shall decide the same while considering the fact that petitioner's daughter is studying in class-XII, the urgency and the exigency of the service of the petitioner and also the judgment of the Apex Court passed in the case of O. Karuppa (supra) within a further period of eight weeks.

¶11

Till period of ten weeks or the decision taken by respondent no. 2 which ever is earlier, the transfer order is kept in abeyance.

¶12

In view of the aforesaid observation, the petition is disposed of.

¶13

Order Date :- 30.8.2022 RC

¶14

Digitally signed by RAM CHANDER YADAV Date: 2022.08.31 17:18:13 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Santosh Kumar Singh 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

Bansh Gopal Sharma Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Prerana Devi Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Sitara Vs State of U P and 2 Others

Asha Devi Vs State of U.P. and Another

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

Babu Lal Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others