Disposed

Krishna Pal Yadav v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Allahabad HC12 May 2023WRIA/8282/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged transfer order via writ petition citing alleged violation of Government Order. Court directed respondent to consider pending representation within six weeks and stay the transfer order.

What did the court decide?

Transfer order stayed pending decision on pending representation; direction to Principal Secretary to decide representation within six weeks.

Krishna Pal Yadav Vs State of U.P. and 2… — Labour and Industrial Disputes | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:103875

¶2

Court No. - 36

¶3

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 8282 of 2023

¶4

Petitioner :- Krishna Pal Yadav Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Priyansh,Sr. Advocate Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Ravi Prakash Pandey

¶5

Hon'ble Ashutosh Srivastava,J.

¶6

Learned counsel for the petitioner is permitted to correct the description of the respondent no. 2 during the course of the day.

¶7

Heard Shri Sanjeev Singh, learned Senior Counsel, assisted by Shri Priyansh, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Ravi Prakash Pandey, learned counsel, representing the respondent nos. 3. Learned Standing Counsel has accepted notice on behalf of the respondent nos. 1 and 2.

¶8

The petitioner, who is junior Engineer (Civil), working with the Ghaziabad Development Authority, Ghaziabad, being aggrieved by an order dated 28.03.2023, passed by the Principal Secretary, Department of Urban Planning and Development, Government of Uttar Pradesh, Lucknow, respondent no. 2, whereby, the petitioner has been transferred to the post of Junior Engineer (civil) Prayagraj Development Authority, Prayagraj, has filed the present writ petition.

¶9

Learned counsel for the petitioner has assailed the transfer order primarily on the ground that the transfer order has been passed in violation of the Government Order, regarding the transfer of the personnel, effective for the year 2022-23. He has invited the attention to clause 5 sub clause (iv) & (vii) of the Government Order dated 15th June, 2022, which has been filed as Anneuxre no. 4 to the writ petition, to buttress the point that under the policy if the spouse of the transferred employee is a Government Servant in that event the transfer shall be affected in the same district or city and further that if two years remained, from the date of superannuation, the employees, as far as possible shall be transferred in the desired districts.

¶10

Learned Senior Counsel submits that transfer order is in violation of both these clauses. He further submits that he has

¶11

already preferred a representation dated 31.03.2023, against the transfer, addressed to the respondent no. 2, which is stated to be pending.

¶12

He further submits that purpose of filing this writ petition would be served if directions are issued to the respondent No. 2, Principal Secretary, Department of Urban Planning and Development, Government of Uttar Pradesh, Lucknow, to consider and pass appropriate orders on the pending representation of the petitioner within a time frame fixed by this Court and meanwhile the transfer order could not be given effect.

¶13

Shri Ravi Prakash Pandey, Learned counsel representing the respondent no. 3, submits that the pending representation of the petitioner shall be decided in accordance with law.

¶14

This Court is of the opinion that since the petitioner has already approached the respondent nos. 2, by way of representation dated 31.03.2023, being aggrieved by the transfer order, impugned in the present writ petition, and the respondent No. 2 Principal Secretary, Department of Urban Planning and Development, Government of Uttar Pradesh, Lucknow, seized with the said representation, it would be appropriate to direct the respondent no. 2 to sympathetically consider and pass appropriate orders on the pending representation of the petitioner, within six weeks from the date of service of a certified copy of the order of this Court.

¶15

Considering the submissions of the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner, that the representation of the petitioner is pending consideration, before the respondent no. 2 and the transfer order is prima facie in violation of the Government Order dated 15th June, 2022, laid down modalities for affecting transfer of Government Servant, which is invoked for the year 2022-23, it is provided that till the decision is taken, on the pending representation of the petitioner, the transfer order dated 28.03.2023 shall not be given effect.

¶16

With the aforesaid observations the writ petition is disposed of .

¶17

Order Date :- 12.5.2023 Deepak/

¶18

Digitally signed by :- DEEPAK KUMAR KUSHWAHA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Krishna Pal Yadav v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Krishna Pal Yadav 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt. Manju Lata Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Rachna Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Shivanand Rai Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Rinki Choudhary Vs State of U.P. and 5 Others

Brahmanand Mishra Vs State of U.P.and 3 Others

Mahipal Singh and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another