Shasi Kant Anan Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. of Finance Lko. and 2 Others

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:72753

¶2

Court No. - 6

¶3

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 8073 of 2024

¶4

Petitioner :- Shasi Kant Anan

¶5

Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. Of Finance Lko. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Hemant Kumar Mishra,Abhishek Mishra,Arti Ganguly Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶6

Hon'ble Alok Mathur, J.

¶7

Heard Sri Shasi Kant Anan, the petitioner in person, who has argued the matter assailing his transfer order dated 12.9.2024.

¶8

It has been submitted by the petitioner that by means of the impugned order the petitioner has been transferred from Lucknow to Chitrakoot. One of the main grievances raised by the petitioner is that in the impugned order dated 12.9.2024 the petitioner has been shown as Auditor while, in fact, the petitioner is discharging his duties as Senior Auditor and is also receiving salary on the post of Senior Auditor and in this regard, he submits that he has approached this Court on previous occasion when the petitioner was transferred from Lucknow to Meerut and the same ground was raised by him that he has been promoted to the post of Senior Auditor on 13.7.2015 and despite his promotion the respondents are showing him to be Auditor. This Court while entertaining the said writ petition had passed the interim order on 7.6.2018 which is quoted as under:-

¶9

"Heard learned counsel for the parties.

¶10

In compliance of order dated 05.06.2018, the learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel has sought instructions and on the basis of instructions, it has been submitted that the petitioners were however promoted vide order dated 13.03.2015 on the post of Senior Auditor but that promotion order was not made strictly in accordance with law and thereafter one gradation list in the cadre of the petitioners has been circulated treating the petitioners as Auditor and the identically placed persons to the petitioners have assailed the said gradation list by filing writ petition bearing Writ Petition No.2060 (S/S) of 2016 before this Court and no interim order has been granted by this Court, therefore, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel has submitted that the petitioners may not be treated as Senior Auditor.

¶11

Learned counsel for the petitioners has vehemently submitted

¶12

that pursuant to the promotion order dated 13.03.2015, the petitioners have been discharging the duties of Senior Auditor and have been getting salary admissible for the post of Senior Auditor till date and if by means of transfer order the authority concerned is treating the petitioner as Auditor, the same would be demotion and as per the settled proposition of law, no order of demotion can be passed without affording an opportunity of hearing to the persons concerned.

¶13

The aforesaid submission of learned counsel for the petitioners finds substance.

¶14

Since the petitioners are ready to submit their joining on the transferred posts, therefore, the petitioners are required to submit their respective joining at the transferred place, but till the next date of listing, they would not be treated as Auditor and in case there is no post available of Senior Auditor at the transferred place, the pay of the petitioners on the promotional posts shall be protected. However, the liberty is provided to the Competent Authority of the State - respondents to pass afresh order, if so needed, strictly in accordance with law, keeping in view the observations made here-in-above.

¶15

Learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel is required to file the comprehensive counter affidavit indicating the reasons as to why the petitioners are being treated as Auditor in the transfer order dated 24.05.2018, whereas they have been getting salary and all other benefits admissible for the post of Senior Auditor.

¶16

Let the counter affidavit be filed within a period of three weeks. Rejoinder affidavit, if any, may be filed within a period of ten days thereafter.

¶17

List this case in the second week of July, 2018 as fresh along with Writ Petition No.2060 (S/S) of 2016."

¶18

From a perusal of the aforesaid, it is clear that as an interim measure this Court has protected the rights of the petitioner and held that he may not be treated to be an Auditor and, in case, there is no post available of Senior Auditor at the transferred place of posting, the pay of the petitioner at the promotional post shall be protected. Once an interim order has already been granted to the petitioner and he is already getting the pay for the post of Senior Auditor then till the currency of the order dated 7.6.2018, the respondents would continue to give the benefit to the petitioner even on his transferred place of posting as per the impugned order dated 12.9.2024.

¶19

It has been informed that the petitioner has already been

¶20

relieved. Accordingly, we do not find any infirmity in the impugned order of transfer subject to the condition that the petitioner shall be given the same benefit at his transferred place of posting as was granted to him by the impugned order dated 7.6.2018.

¶21

It is made clear that the benefits shall be modified only when the order dated 7.6.2018 is altered by this Court.

¶22

It is provided that in case the petitioner joins within next seven days, no coercive action shall betaken against him.

¶23

With aforesaid direction, the petition stands disposed off.

¶24

(Alok Mathur, J.)

¶25

Order Date :- 4.11.2024 RKM.

¶26

Digitally signed by :- RAKESH KUMAR MAURYA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Shasi Kant Anan v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. of Finance Lko. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shasi Kant Anan v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. of Finance Lko. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Ram Adhar and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Forest Deptt. Lko. and Another

Govind Prasad Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Rural Development Govt. of U.P. and 4 Others

Nagendra Pratap Singh Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko and 2 Others

Sushmita Singh vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Finance Lko and 2 Others

Sushmita Singh Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Finance Lko and 2 Others

Kunwar Brahma Prakash Singh vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Lko and 4 Others