Partly allowed

Smt. Shiva Shukla v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. of Home U.P. Lko. and 2 Others

Allahabad HC4 Mar 2024WRIA/1729/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single mother petitioner challenged transfer order citing critically ill son needing surgery. Court stayed operation pending affidavit exchange, allowing accommodation elsewhere post-elections.

What did the court decide?

Stay on operation of impugned transfer order dated 17.01.2024. Six weeks time granted to respondent for counter affidavit; two weeks to petitioner for rejoinder.

Smt. Shiva Shukla vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl… — Service and Employment | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Court No. - 18

¶2

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 1729 of 2024

¶3

Petitioner :- Smt. Shiva Shukla Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. Of Home U.P. Lko. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Shailendra Singh Rajawat,Sunder Singh Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶4

Hon'ble Manish Kumar,J.

¶5

Instructions received from Inspector General of Police, Lucknow Range filed by learned State Counsel are taken on record.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for petitioner as well as learned State Counsel.

¶7

The present writ petition has been preferred for quashing of the impugned transfer order dated 17.01.2024 whereby the petitioner has been transferred from District Raebareli to District Sitapur and with a further prayer to direct the respondent nos. 2 and 3 not to implement the impugned transfer order and not to relieve the petitioner from the present place of posting at District Raebareli.

¶8

Learned counsel for petitioner has submitted that the petitioner is an Inspector in Civil Police. By the impugned order dated 17.01.2024, the petitioner has been transferred from District Raebareli to District Sitapur. It is further submitted that the petitioner is a single mother having a son who is critically ill and had already undergone two brain surgeries and the third surgery is advised by the doctors to be conducted very soon.

¶9

It is further submitted that being a single mother and no one else in the house, it is the petitioner alone who looks after her son, who is bedridden.

¶10

In support of her submission, the photographs and medical reports have been enclosed and after looking the same, the seriousness and the request of the petitioner appears to be genuine.

¶11

On the other hand, learned State Counsel has submitted that the transfer of the petitioner is under compelling circumstances as the guidelines have been issued by the Election Commission to transfer the officials at different places who have completed either three years or more period at the same place. So they are helpless to pass any order in favour of the petitioner though they are very well aware about the difficulty of the petitioner and the ill health of the son of the petitioner.

¶12

Learned State Counsel on the basis of instructions received from the Inspector General of Police, Lucknow Range has further submitted that condition of the son of the petitioner is serious and on humanitarian ground, she will be accommodated at the place of her choice where the treatment of her son is available after the elections are over.

¶13

Under these circumstances, this Court while exercising its power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, has found that the transfer of the petitioner at this critical stage where her son is bed ridden due to brain surgeries conducted twice and the third is advised by the doctors to be conducted very soon.

¶14

Learned State counsel prays for and is granted six weeks time for filing counter affidavit and two weeks' time is granted to learned counsel for petitioner for filing rejoinder affidavit.

¶15

Till the next date of listing, the operation of the impugned order dated 17.01.2024 is hereby stayed .

¶16

Order Date :- 7.3.2024 DiVYa

¶17

Digitally signed by :- DIVYA SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Smt. Shiva Shukla v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. of Home U.P. Lko. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Shiva Shukla v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. of Home U.P. Lko. 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

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Deepak Anand Vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Lko.

Baiteri Alias Abdul Khabeer Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Civil Secrt. U.P. Lko.

Geeta @ Shiv Kumari Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl Chief Secy. Deptt. of Home, Lko.

Adesh Pathak vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and 2 Others

Nitesh Singh (According to Aadhar Card Nitesh Kumar Singh) vs State of U.P Thru. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and Another

Mohd. Yusuf vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Civil Secrt. Govt. Lko. and Another