Disposed

Sita Ram v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Allahabad HC26 Sept 2023WRIA/14241/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged a transfer-cum-promotion order citing 50% handicap and family difficulties. Court declined writ jurisdiction to interfere with administrative transfer policy but directed the relevant department to decide the pending representation within 15 days considering the transfer policy.

What did the court decide?

Prayer to interdict transfer via writ declined. Department directed to decide pending representation within 15 days and communicate result within a week.

Sita Ram Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:187245

¶2

Court No. - 33

¶3

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 14241 of 2023

¶4

Petitioner :- Sita Ram Respondent :- State of U.P. and others Counsel for Petitioner :- Nand Kishor Mishra Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C

¶5

Hon'ble J.J. Munir,J.

¶6

Heard Ms. Shilpa Ahuja, Advocate holding brief of Mr. Nand Kishor Mishra, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Mr. A.B. Sinha, learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of all the respondents.

¶7

The petitioner, who has been promoted to the post of Head Constable at the Zila Udyog Protsahan Evam Udyogmita Vikas Kendra, Mahoba and transferred from Chitrakoot to Mahoba, says that the promotion-cum-transfer order is bad, on account of the fact that the petitioner is handicapped to the extent of 50% and his brother is also handicapped, a fact pleaded in paragraph No. 5 of the petition. He has a 75-year old mother at home, besides three daughters to take care of. It is urged that in the past, when the petitioner was transferred, this Court, considering his extreme difficulties, had stayed the order of transfer vide order dated 12.10.2020 made in Writ - A No. 8087 of 2020.

¶8

Be that as it may, the present transfer order has come, coupled with an order of promotion. Transfer is an incident of service, and the petitioner alleges transgression of the State Transfer Policy dated 07.06.2023. It is not for this Court, even in the case of a brazen violation of the transfer policy, to interfere with an order of transfer. It is a matter which has to be examined by the employers

¶9

themselves as primary decision makers.

¶10

In the circumstances, the prayer to interdict the transfer through a mandamus is declined .

¶11

However, the Commissioner and Director, Industry, Udyog Evam Udyam Protsahan Nidheshalaya, Kanpur Nagar, arrayed as respondent No. 3, before whom the petitioner's representation dated 05.06.2023 is pending, shall decide the same, bearing in mind the State's transfer policy and in accordance with law, within 15 days of date. He shall communicate the result of his orders on the representation to the petitioner at the address given in the cause title, through registered post, within a week of the decision being taken.

¶12

The writ petition stands disposed of in terms of the orders aforesaid.

¶13

Let this order be communicated to the Commissioner and Director, Industry, Udyog Evam Udyam Protsahan Nidheshalaya, Kanpur Nagar by the Registrar (Compliance).

¶14

Order Date :- 26.9.2023 I. Batabyal

¶15

Digitally signed by :- ISHAN BATABYAL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Sita Ram v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sita Ram v. State of U.P. 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

Deepak Kumar Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Narendra Singh Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

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

Ram Kishor Vs Mukesh Kumar Sahu and 3 Ors.

Smt. Shakuntla Devi Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Pratibha Bhati Vs U.P. Power Corporation and Another