Disposed

Smt. Tripti v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Medical Health and Family Welfare Department, Lucknow and 2 Others

Allahabad HC20 Aug 2024WRIA/6565/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition concerning a grievance over a transfer order, the Allahabad High Court disposed of the matter at the admission stage. The court granted liberty to the petitioner to file a fresh representation to the Director General, Medical and Health Services, U.P., for reconsideration of her transfer request. The court explicitly refrained from interfering with the impugned order.

What did the court decide?

Liberty to prefer a fresh representation before the Director General, Medical and Health Services, U.P., with a direction to pass a decision within eight weeks.

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

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:56550

¶2

Court No. - 4

¶3

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 6565 of 2024

¶4

Petitioner :- Smt. Tripti Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Medical Health And Family Welfare Department, Lucknow And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Anand Mani Tripathi,Anurag Tripathi Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶5

Hon'ble Rajesh Singh Chauhan,J.

¶6

Heard Shri Anurag Tripathi, learned counsel for the petitioner and Ms Deepshikha Learner Chief Standing Counsel-II.

¶7

After arguing at some length, the learned counsel for the petitioner has confined his prayer to the extent that the petitioner may be permitted to prefer a fresh representation before the opposite party no. 2, i.e., Director General, Medical and Health Services, U.P., Lucknow in respect of her transfer and that representation may be considered strictly in accordance with law and transfer policy.

¶8

On that, Ms. Deepshikha, learned Chief Standing Counsel-II has stated that the petitioner has filed consecutive writ petitions and contempt petitions for the same request, i.e., she be retained at Banda, where she has discharged her duties for 22 years before 2021 therefore, she may not be accommodated at Banda.

¶9

Be that as it may, transfer is an exigency of service and this is a domain prerogative of an employer to post an employee at a particular particular place keeping in view the administrative exigencies, therefore, without entering into the merits of the issue, I hereby dispose of this writ petition finally at the admission stage and without interfering the impugned order.

¶10

Liberty is given to the petitioner to prefer a fresh representation before the opposite party no. 2 taking all pleas and grounds which are available to him, ventilating her bona fide grievance and if the competent authority finds suitable, in view of the administrative exigencies, any appropriate order may be passed for forthcoming transfer season and decision thereof may be intimated to the petitioner. Such decision may be taken by the competent authority within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.

¶11

Order Date :- 20.8.2024/Anurag

¶12

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

Smt. Tripti v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Medical Health and Family Welfare Department, Lucknow and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Tripti v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Medical Health and Family Welfare Department, Lucknow 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

Dilip Kumar Tiwari and Another Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Medical and Health Services and Another

Dinesh Kumar and Another Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Food and Civil Supply Lko. and 4 Others

Shyam Narayan Mishra Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Medical Health Services Lko and Another

Smt. Chandravati vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Transport Deptt. Lko and 2 Others

Harishchandra Gupta and 10 Others Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. of Irrigation and Water, Lko

Balwan Singh Yadav Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. U.P. Board of Revenue U.P. Lko. and 3 Others