Disposed

Rajendra Prasad v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Irrigation Deptt. Lko and 2 Others

Allahabad HC16 Jul 2024WRIA/5359/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A writ petition was filed by a Tube-well Operator challenging a transfer order, citing imminent retirement. The High Court, without deciding merits, allowed the petitioner to file a fresh representation and directed the authority to decide it within three weeks with interim relief.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner permitted to move fresh representation within one week; authority directed to decide within three weeks with speaking order; no coercive action until disposal.

Rajendra Prasad vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy… — Service and Employment | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:48044

¶2

Court No. - 4

¶3

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 5359 of 2024

¶4

Petitioner :- Rajendra Prasad Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Irrigation Deptt. Lko And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Kunj Bihari Pandey Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶5

Hon'ble Rajesh Singh Chauhan,J.

¶6

Heard Sri Kunj Bihari Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Tushar Verma, learned Standing Counsel for the opposite parties.

¶7

By means of this petition the petitioner has prayed following relief :

¶8

"(i) Issue a writ order or direction in the nature of Certiorari for quashing the impugned order dated 29.06.2024 issued by the opposite party No.2 against the petitioner contained as Annexure No.1 to the writ petition.

¶9

(ii) Issue a writ order or direction in the nature of Mandamus commanding the opposite parties to not give effect the impugned order dated 29.06.2024 and further be pleased to direct the opposite parties not to compel to join on transfer place and not disturb the functioning of the petitioner as Tube-well Operator in any manner in pursuance of impugned order."

¶10

The only ground to assail the aforesaid transfer order is that the petitioner is to retire within nine months and as per transfer policy if any employee is to retire within two years, he may be accommodated at the place of his choice except the home district. he has further submitted that the petitioner has approached the competent authority preferring a representation but to no avail, however, till date he has not been relieved.

¶11

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that ends of justice would suffice if he is allowed to move a fresh representation before the competent authority / opposite party no. 2 and the same may be directed to dispose it of with speaking and reasoned order within stipulated time.

¶12

With the consent of parties the writ petition is disposed of finally at the admission stage.

¶13

Without entering into the merits of the issue, the petitioner is permitted to move a fresh representation within one week before the opposite party no. 2 / competent authority enclosing his earlier representations along with all relevant documents. If such a representation is moved the competent authority concerned is directed to dispose of the representation of the petitioner with speaking and reasoned order, strictly in accordance with law expeditiously, say within a period of three weeks from the date of production of the certified copy of this order.

¶14

The competent authority shall communicate the decision on the representation to the petitioner forthwith.

¶15

Till the disposal of the representation or one month whichever is earlier no coercive action shall be taken against the petitioner, if he has not been relief till date.

¶16

Writ petition is finally disposed of .

¶17

[Rajesh Singh Chauhan, J.]

¶18

Order Date :- 16.7.2024 Om

¶19

Digitally signed by :- OM PRAKASH MISHRA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Rajendra Prasad v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Irrigation Deptt. Lko and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajendra Prasad v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Irrigation Deptt. 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

Dinesh Kumar Singh Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Govt. of U.P. Civil Sectt. Lko.

Rahul Kumar Verma and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. Home Lko and 2 Others

Vinod Kumar Mittal Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue Deptt. Lko. and Another

Parthviraj Singh vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Jal Shakti (Minor Irrigation) Lko. and 4 Others

Sandeep Vs State of U.P. Thru. the Prin. Secy. Home, Lko.

Sopal Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.