Dismissed

Sushil Kumar Saxena v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Transport Deptt. Govt. Lko and 3 Others

Allahabad HC5 Nov 2024WRIA/10191/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition challenging a transfer order, the High Court examined the petitioner's grievance regarding retention in his home district and health issues. Citing precedents, the court held that transfer is an incident of service and administrative in nature. Finding no malafide or statutory violation, the court dismissed the petition.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed; no reason found to interfere with the impugned orders of transfer and rejection of representation.

Sushil Kumar Saxena vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin… — Service and Employment | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:72799

¶2

Court No. - 6

¶3

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 10191 of 2024

¶4

Petitioner :- Sushil Kumar Saxena Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Transport Deptt. Govt. Lko And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Manish Mani Sharma Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶5

Hon'ble Alok Mathur,J.

¶6

Heard Sri Manish Mani Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner and the Standing counsel for the respondents.

¶7

By means of the present writ petition the petitioner has challenged order dated 23rd August, 2024 passed by Additional Commissioner, Transport (Administration), Uttar Pradesh thereby rejecting the representation of the petitioner for setting aside the transfer order dated 30.6.2024 whereby the petitioner has been transferred from Jhansi to Etawah.

¶8

It has been submitted that the petitioner is working on the post of Junior Clerk in Transport Department at Jhansi whereby by means of the order dated 30.6.2024 the services of the petitioner has been transferred to Etawah. The petitioner being aggrieved by the order of transfer, especially on the ground that the same was in violation of the provisions contained in Clause 5 (v) of the guidelines of the transfer for 2024-25 issued on 11.6.2024 and also the fact that less then two years remained from the date of his superannuation, he had requested that he may be retained in Jhansi, which is his Home District and, hence, prayer has been made for setting aside of the order of transfer. It is in aforesaid circumstances that he had approached this Court on previous occasion by filing Writ A No.5246 of 2024 which was disposed of by this Court by means of order dated 12.7.2024 directing Additional Commissioner, Transport (Administration), U.P. to consider the grievance of the petitioner as stated in his representation and decide the same with expedition and by a reasoned ans speaking order.

¶9

In compliance of the aforesaid direction of this Court dated 12.7.2024 by means of the impugned order dated 23rd August, 2024 the representation of the petitioner has been rejected. While rejecting the said representation due consideration has been taken to the fact that date of birth of the petitioner is 11.4.1966 and his Home District is Jhansi. It has been considered that on 31.3.2024 the petitioner had two years and nine months' services remaining and accordingly he does not fall in clause 5 (i) of the transfer policy for 2024-25. Apart from the aforesaid facts, it was also taken into consideration that the petitioner has already spent last three decades in Jhansi Division, which his substantially long length of time and consequently be cannot be retained in Jhansi. With regard to the ailment of the wife of the petitioner it was informed that no medical certificate has been annexed and accordingly it is in aforesaid circumstances that the representation of the petitioner has been rejected.

¶10

This Court has also examined the impugned order. Firstly, there is no dispute with regard to the fact that two years and nine months' services of the petitioner remained and, therefore, he does not fall within the category of clause 5 (v) of the transfer policy for 2024-25. Secondly, the ailments regarding high blood pressure and diabetes of the petitioner and pains in knee and hands and other ailments are such medial ailments which are age related and are not serious enough to interfere and set aside the impugned order of transfer. Also, the petitioner has clearly stated that there is no dispute with regard to the fact that the petitioner has already served for thirty years in Jhansi Division, which is a substantial period of his entire services.

¶11

6.Hon'ble Supreme Court has already settled this principle in plethora of cases like Shilpi Bose and others Vs. State of Bihar and others, 1991 Supp (2) SCC 659; National Hydroelectric Power Corporation Ltd. Vs. Shri Bhagwan, 2001 (8) SCC 574 and S. K. Nsushad RAhaman Vs. Union of India (2022) 12 SCC 1. In Public Services Tribunal Bar Association vs. State of U.P. and another (2003) 4 SCC 104 it was held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court as under:

¶12

"37.Transfer is an incident of service and is made in administrative exigencies. Normally it is not to be interfered with by the Courts. This Court consistently has been taking a view that orders of transfer should not be interfered with except

¶13

in rare cases where the transfer has been made in a vindictive manner."

¶14

In the case of Param Singh and four others Vs. State of U.P. and others passed on 19.11.2018 in Special Appeal No.1163 of 2018 this Court has held as under:-

¶15

"It is a trite law that transfer is a condition of service. A Government servant has no vested right to remain posted at the place of his/ her choice. The transfer order does not violate legal right of a person holding transferable post, if he is transferred from one place to another in public interest. The order of transfer is an administrative order. The Supreme Court in unbroken line of decisions has held that the scope of judicial review in the matter of transfer is very limited. The Courts should not interfere with transfer order which is made in the public interest and for administrative reasons, unless an order of transfer is shown to be outcome of malafide exercise or stated to be in violation of statutory provision prohibiting any such transfer."

¶16

In the present case, it is noticed that in pursuance of the direction of this Court the respondents have considered the representation of the petitioner and sustained the order of transfer and no ground of malafide or violation of any statutory provision has been demonstrated by the petitioner necessitating interference of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

¶17

In view of the above, this Court does not find any reason to interfere in the impugned order of transfer dated 30.6.2024 and the impugned order dated 23.8.2024. The petition being devoid of merit is dismissed.

¶18

(Alok Mathur, J.)

¶19

Order Date :- 5.11.2024 RKM.

¶20

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

Sushil Kumar Saxena v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Transport Deptt. Govt. Lko and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sushil Kumar Saxena v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Transport Deptt. Govt. 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

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

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

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

Smt. Shanti and Another vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko and Another

Rajjan @ Rajjan Lal vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. (Home) Lko. and 3 Others

Vijay Bahadur Verma Vs State of U.P. Thru Prin.Secy.Deptt.of Revenue Lukcnow and Ors.