Disposed

Mukesh Kumar v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC25 Sept 2023WRIA/16047/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged his transfer from Aligarh to Etawah, alleging lack of consideration of his representation. The court found no ground to interfere with the general transfer but directed the petitioner to submit a representation; if filed within two weeks, it would be considered within two months.

What did the court decide?

Directed to submit representation within two weeks for consideration by competent authority within two months.

Mukesh Kumar Vs State of U.P. and Another — Service and Employment | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:185445

¶2

Court No. - 34

¶3

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 16047 of 2023

¶4

Petitioner :- Mukesh Kumar Respondent :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Petitioner :- Rameshwar Prasad Mishra Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶5

Hon'ble Ajit Kumar,J.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

¶7

Petitioner is aggrieved by the general transfer order dated 16th June, 2023, whereby he has been transferred from Aligarh to Etawah.

¶8

The argument advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner is that earlier petitioner was transferred from Aligarh to Budaun where he had worked for more than three years and, therefore, he made request to be repatriated to Aligarh.

¶9

Accordingly, a writ petition being Writ - A No.- 8077 of 2020 was filed by the petitioner, in which Court had directed for considering the representation of the petitioner. When representation of the petitioner was not considered, he filed a contempt application and in order to avoid contempt proceedings petitioner was transferred to Aligarh.

¶10

Now, he submits that petitioner has been transferred again from Aligarh to Etawah whereas he is required to render at least three years of service but petitioner has not disclosed in the entire writ petition as to when petitioner has been repatriated to Aligarh.

¶11

According to the learned Standing Counsel petitioner has been working for more than two years at Aligarh.

¶12

In the circumstances, the transfer being in the nature of general transfer policy, the Court does not find any good ground to interfere with the same.

¶13

However, it will remain open for the petitioner to make a representation raising all his grievances before the competent authority and in the event any such representation is moved within

¶14

a period of two weeks from today, his representation shall be considered strictly in accordance with law within the next two months' time.

¶15

Order Date :- 25.9.2023 Atmesh

¶16

Digitally signed by :- ATMESH KESARI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Mukesh Kumar v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mukesh Kumar v. State of U.P. and Another

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

Daulat Ram Vs Union of India and 4 Others

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

Shiv Shankar Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Suresh Babu Saxena Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Shailendra Kumar Saxena Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Ravi Singh Vs Union of India and 2 Others