Disposed

Anil Kumar Srivastava v. Consolidation Commissioner Lko. and 4 Others

Allahabad HC15 Jul 2024WRIA/5315/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single judge disposed of a writ petition challenging an inter-district transfer order against an employee nearing retirement. Without adjudicating merits, the court directed the employee to submit a fresh representation alongside the transfer policy for an expedited disposed.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner given liberty to prefer fresh representation with enclosure of transfer policy within seven days; no coercive action pending.

Anil Kumar Srivastava vs Consolidation Commissioner… — Service and Employment | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Court No. - 4

¶2

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 5315 of 2024

¶3

Petitioner :- Anil Kumar Srivastava

¶4

Respondent :- Consolidation Commissioner Lko. And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Rama Niwas Pathak Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶5

Hon'ble Rajesh Singh Chauhan,J.

¶6

Heard Shri Rama Nivas Pathak, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Ashwani Kumar Singh Rathore, learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents.

¶7

Learned counsel for the petitioner has assailed the order dated 30.06.2024, passed by the Additional Commissioner Consolidation, Lucknow whereby the petitioner, who was appointed on the post of Junior Assistant (Class III), was transferred from district Amethi to District Raebareli. The name of the petitioner finds place at serial no.2 whereby he has been transferred from Amethi to Raebareilly. Learned counsel has further submitted that though relieving order has been passed, but the petitioner has not been relieved from Amethi and no one has submitted his joining at his place.

¶8

The main ground to assail the aforesaid impugned order is that petitioner is to retire within a period of ten months and as per paragraph 5(v) of transfer policy, 2024-25, an employee who is to retire within a period of two years may be accommodated at any place as per the choice of the employee except his home district. The petitioner is willing to settle at Amethi, therefore, he may be retained at Amethi.

¶9

Learned Standing Counsel has, however, tried to justify the transfer order and relieving order and has fairly submitted that

¶10

there is a provision in the transfer policy to accommodate those employees who is to retire within a period of two years, any appropriate direction may be issued by this Court.

¶11

Therefore, without entering into merits of the issue, I hereby, dispose of this writ petition at the admission stage giving liberty to the petitioner to prefer a fresh representation taking all pleas and grounds, which are available to him, enclosing therewith copies of his earlier representation and other relevant documents including the transfer policy, which are necessary for disposal of the representation, within a period of seven days from today and if such representation is preferred by the petitioner within aforesaid period, the same shall be considered and decided by passing a speaking and reasoned order, strictly in accordance with law and transfer policy so enclosed with the representation, with expedition, preferably within a period of three weeks thereafter and the decision thereof shall be intimated to the petitioner forthwith.

¶12

Till the disposal of the aforesaid representation or a period of one month, whichever is earlier, no coercive action shall be taken against the petitioner pursuant to the transfer order and relieving order.

¶13

(Rajesh Singh Chauhan, J.)

¶14

Order Date :- 15.7.2024 Arnima

¶15

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

Anil Kumar Srivastava v. Consolidation Commissioner Lko. and 4 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Anil Kumar Srivastava v. Consolidation Commissioner Lko. and 4 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

Kailash Chandra Baranwal Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Medical Health and Family Welfare, Lko. and 3 Others

Gaurav Mishra Vs Union of India Thru. Central Bureau of Narcotics, Lucknow

Ratnakar Tiwari Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Medical Health and Family Welfare, Lko. and Others

Ramesh Kumar vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Smt. Anjali Kumari vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Excise Civil Sectt. Lko and 4 Others

Nrapendra Singh vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Forest Deptt. Lko. and Another