Disposed

Surjan Lal v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. of Revenue Lko. U.P. and 4 Others

Allahabad HC24 Sept 2024WRIA/8256/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner sought to quash a transfer order and directed transfer to Lucknow due to threat perception during trial of cases at that location. The High Court disposed of the writ at the admission stage without adjudicating the merits, directing authorities to decide the petitioner's representation.

What did the court decide?

Directed opposite parties to consider the petitioner's representation dated 19.06.2024 strictly in accordance with law and transfer policy, deciding it within four weeks considering threat perception.

Surjan Lal vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy… — Service and Employment | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:66118

¶2

Court No. - 4

¶3

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 8256 of 2024

¶4

Petitioner :- Surjan Lal

¶5

Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. Of Revenue Lko. U.P. And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Umesh Singh,Savitra Vardhan Singh Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶6

Hon'ble Rajesh Singh Chauhan,J.

¶7

1. Heard Sri Savitra Vardhan Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Diwakar Singh, learned Standing Counsel for the State.

¶8

2. By means of this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs:-

¶9

"(i) to issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned order dated 30.06.2023 (contained as Annexure No.1 to the writ petition), passed by the opposite party No.3.

¶10

(ii) to issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the opposite parties especially opposite party Nos.2 & 3 to transfer the petitioner on the post of Lekhpal at District-Lucknow, as per the provision mentioned in proviso of para-5 (iii) of the Transfer Policy of the State Government dated 11.06.2024.

¶11

(iii) to issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the opposite party Nos.2 & 3 to decide the application dated 19.06.2024 submitted by the petitioner before the Commissioner, Lucknow Division, Lucknow, within stipulated period of time."

¶12

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has stated that though the petitioner has submitted his joining at the transferred place but still he is having his bonafide grievance inasmuch as he is a complainant of two cases registered against Muktar Ansari (now dead), Abbas Ansari and Umar Ansari, the trial thereof is going on at Lucknow. Therefore when he comes from Sitapur to Lucknow to cooperate/ attend the trial proceedings he has threat perception. Besides, he is having more bonafide grievance in terms of transfer policy. Therefore, those grievance may be considered by the opposite party Nos.2 and 3 to whom he has already preferred a representation dated 19.06.2024. But the aforesaid innocuous prayer of the petitioner has not been considered by the authority concerned.

¶13

4. Therefore, without entering into merits of the issue and

¶14

without interfering with the impugned transfer order, I hereby dispose of this writ petition finally at the admission stage directing the opposite party Nos.2 and 3 to consider and decide the representation of the petitioner dated 19.06.2024 preferred by the petitioner, strictly in accordance with law and as per the transfer policy and also considering the threat perception being faced by the petitioner with expedition preferably within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order and the decision thereof may be intimated to the petitioner forthwith.

¶15

5. Accordingly, the instant writ petition is disposed of finally.

¶16

[Rajesh Singh Chauhan,J.]

¶17

Order Date :- 24.9.2024 Suresh/

¶18

Digitally signed by :- SURESH CHANDRA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Surjan Lal v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. of Revenue Lko. U.P. and 4 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Surjan Lal v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. of Revenue Lko. U.P. 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

Mohd. Muzahid and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Revenue, Lucknow and Others

Deepak Kumar No. 062541943 and 46 Others Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko and 13 Others

Narendra Singh and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Irrigation Deptt. Lko. and 2 Others

Dinesh Gupta vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko

Om Prakash vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Namami Gange and Rural Water Supply Lko and 2 Others

Ram Pratap Ojha and 9 Others vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. of Finance and 3 Others