Allowed

Sonia Mishra v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Allahabad HC26 Apr 2022WRIA/3594/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Allowed a writ petition quashing the rejection of the petitioner's second online application for inter-district transfer. Held that authorities cannot bar a second transfer application based solely on the Rules, though transfer remains at the State's discretion.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order restricting the petitioner to one transfer application is quashed; authority to revisit matter and decide within six weeks.

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

¶1

Court No. - 36 Case :- WRIT - A No. - 3594 of 2022 Petitioner :- Sonia Mishra Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Navin Kumar Sharma Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Chandrakesh Rai Hon'ble Rajiv Joshi,J.

¶2

Heard Shri Navin Kumar Sharma, learned Counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for respondent nos.1 & 3, Shri Chandrakesh Rai, learned Counsel for respondent no.2.

¶3

The instant writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed for quashing the impugned rejection order of online application of the petitioner seeking transfer from District Jhansi to District Unnao.

¶4

It is contended by learned Counsel for the petitioner that earlier he filed Writ-A No.8478 of 2020, which was allowed by this Court vide order dated 03.11.2020. The concerned authority, however, again rejected the petitioner's claim on the ground that the subsequent application for transfer has already been rejected.

¶5

Learned counsel for the petitioner has invited attention of the Court to a Division Bench Judgement in Special Appeal Defective No.419 of 2021 wherein the Division Bench has observed that in the absence of stipulation in the rule the authorities cannot restrict the transfer only on one application for inter-district. Operative portion of the Division Bench judgement reads as under:-

¶6

"In view of the above, we find that the Government Order, imposing bar on second application for inter-district transfer, is not in consonance with the Rules; rather, de hors the statutory Rules. To that extent, we are entertaining this appeal and causing interference in the directions issued by the learned Single Judge prohibiting second application for inter-district transfer. It is, however, with the clarity that mere making of application would not mean a right to get transferred; rather, it would remain at the discretion of the State Government. It is furthermore that if the Government permits inter-district transfer, the employee would be placed at the bottom of the seniority in the district where he/she is transferred.

¶7

With the aforesaid, we cause interference in the order of the Government as well as the judgement of the learned Single Judge to clarify that as per Rule 21 of the Rules of 1981 so as Rule 8(2)(d) of the Rules of 2008, an employee would be at liberty to make application for inter-district transfer and it would not be restricted to only one application in his service tenure. It is again with the clarification that mere making of an application would not create a right to get transferred; rather, it would remain at the discretion of the Government.

¶8

If any employee has been affected by the outcome of the judgement in question, he would be at liberty to take the remedy individually challenging the order of transfer.

¶9

The appeal is allowed with the aforesaid."

¶10

In view of the clear enunciation of law by the Division Bench of this Court on the subject it would not be open for the authorities to reject petitioner's application only on the ground that this application is the second application for transfer.

¶11

Writ petition, accordingly, succeeds and is allowed. The impugned order rejecting the online application of the petitioner is quashed. The authority concerned shall revisit the matter in light of the above observation of the Division Bench and the application will not be rejected only on the ground that the application is second application for transfer. Requisite decision would be taken within a period of six weeks from the date of presentation of a copy of this order

¶12

Order Date :- 26.4.2022/S.P.

¶13

Digitally signed by SANJAY PURI Date: 2022.04.27 09:59:47 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Sonia Mishra v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sonia Mishra 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Pankaj Kumar and 15 Others Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Devrashi Mishra Vs State of U.P. and 5 Others

Smt. Chandra Bahan Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

C/M Khandwari Devi Bal Vidya Mandir and Another Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Mrs. Pragya Tripathi Vs State of U.P. and Another

Kanchan Saxena Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others