Disposed

Mohammad Ateeq-Ullah Khan v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Transport Deptt. Lko. and 3 Others

Allahabad HC2 Jun 2023/4473/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Allahabad High Court disposed of a writ petition challenging a government employee's transfer from Bahraich to Ayodhya. The court directed the petitioner to file a representation to the Additional Transport Commissioner regarding the transfer order's alleged violation of the departmental policy, prohibiting coercive action pending the authority's decision.

What did the court decide?

Liberty to file a representation raising grievances; restraint on coercive action pending higher authority's decision within two weeks.

Mohammad Ateeq-Ullah Khan Vs State of U.P. Thru… — Service and Employment | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC-LKO:40107

¶2

Court No. - 3

¶3

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 4473 of 2023

¶4

Petitioner :- Mohammad Ateeq-Ullah Khan Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Transport Deptt. Lko. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Rakesh Kumar Chaudhary,Ayush Chaudhary,Nishi Chaudhary Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶5

Hon'ble Manish Kumar,J.

¶6

Heard Shri Rakesh Kumar Chaudhary, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the State.

¶7

Present writ petition has been preferred by the petitioner challenging the impugned transfer order dated 30.06.2022 by which the petitioner has been transferred from Bahraich to Ayodhya and consequential order dated 19.05.2023, which is a communication by the Additional Transport Commissioner (Administration) (H.Q), U.P. i.e. respondent no. 3 to the Assistant Regional Transport Officer (Administration) Bahraich for relieving the petitioner to join at transferred place by 25.05.2023.

¶8

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the impugned transfer order dated 30.06.2022 is not in contravention of the Transfer Policy dated 15.06.2022, which is applicable for the transfer year 2022-23 as the petitioner is a District President of U.P. Regional Transport Employees Association and as per para 12 of the said policy, if a person is an office bearer, he shall not be transferred within two years after being elected as an officer bearer of said association. If the transfer is necessary, then the same shall be passed with the prior approval of higher authority and in the present case, the prior approval has not been taken.

¶9

It is further submitted that the wife of the petitioner is also an employee of Transport Department and presently posted at Bahraich and as per para 5(iv) of Policy, there is a provision that if husband and wife are in a Government occupation, then, endeavour shall be made to post them at same place as far as it is practically possible.

¶10

It is further submitted that the petitioner is going to retire on 11.07.2025 i.e. within two years and one month and as per para

¶11

5(vii) of the Policy, which provides that an employee, who is going to retire within two years, he or she may not be transferred. It is further submitted that the charge has not been handed over by the petitioner, any relieving, if it is there, behind the back of petitioner. It is further submitted that no one has been transferred or posted in place of petitioner.

¶12

On the other hand, learned Standing Counsel on the basis of instructions received from Additional Transport Commissioner (Administration) dated 01.06.2023 has submitted that prior approval has been taken by higher authority before passing the transfer order. It is further submitted that the petitioner was posted at Bahraich from last 24 years continuously but unable to dispute that husband and wife shall be posted at one place as far as it is possible and the date of retirement of the petitioner is within two years.

¶13

Considering the submissions advanced on behalf of the rival parties and going through the record, liberty is given to the petitioner to make a representation to the respondent no. 3 i.e. Additional Transport Commissioner (H.Q) U.P. within two weeks from today raising his grievances against the transfer order dated 30.06.2022, who may consider and decide the same within two weeks, thereafter, keeping in mind the relevant provisions of transfer policy dated 15.06.2022 for transfer of its employees and till then, no coercive action shall be taken against the petitioner. If petitioner is not made any representation within the period stipulated above,the petitioner is not entitled for the above mentioned order/protection.

¶14

Writ petition is disposed of.

¶15

Order Date :- 2.6.2023

¶16

Ashish

¶17

Digitally signed by :- ASHISH MISHRA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Mohammad Ateeq-Ullah Khan v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Transport Deptt. Lko. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mohammad Ateeq-Ullah Khan v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Transport Deptt. Lko. 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

Mauliram and Another Vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Lko.

Shiv Nandan and Another Vs State of U.P. Thru. Its Prin. Secy. Home, Lko. and Others

Sandeep Kumar @ Sandeep Gautam Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Mukaddar Ali Vs State of U.P.. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Home Lko.

K.A. Rauf Sherif Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. (Home) Civil Sectt. Lko. and 4 Others

Shitala Prasad Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Civil Secrett. Lko. and Another