Disposed

Mohd. Ilyas v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. Rural Development, Govt. of U.P. Lko. and 3 Others

Allahabad HC18 Oct 2024WRIA/9493/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged a transfer order citing his disability and transfer policy protecting handicapped employees; representations went unaddressed. Court disposed of the writ petition directing respondent no. 4 to decide a fresh representation by reasoned order within two weeks and withheld relieving until then.

What the court decided

AI extract

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

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:70528

¶2

Court No. - 6

¶3

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 9493 of 2024

¶4

Petitioner :- Mohd. Ilyas Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. Rural Development, Govt. Of U.P. Lko. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Abhineet Jaiswal Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶5

Hon'ble Alok Mathur,J.

¶6

By means of the instant petition the petitioner has challenged the transfer order dated 04.10.2024 on the ground that he is handicapped person. Besides, his wife is also in Government Service and she is posted as Assistant Teacher at District Shahjahanpur.

¶7

Submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the transfer policy dated 11th June 2024 specifically states that the Handicapped persons will ordinarily not be transferred.

¶8

It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that in this regard he has given several representation to the authorities concerned, but till date no action has been taken.

¶9

After arguing the matter up to some length, it is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that grievance of the petitioner shall be substantially redressed in case his representation is considered and decided by respondent no. 4, expeditiously.

¶10

Learned Standing Counsel has no objection in case suitable directions are issued to the respondent no. 4 to consider and decide petitioner's representation.

¶11

Having considered the aforesaid facts, this writ petition is disposed of, giving liberty to the petitioner to submit a fresh representation to the respondent no. 4 within a period of two week's from today.

¶12

The Representation so submitted will be the decided within a period of 2 weeks thereafter by a reasoned and speaking order and the order passed on the representation shall be communicated to the petitioner.

¶13

Till communication of the order, the petitioner shall not be relieved in furtherance of the transfer-order, impugned in this writ petition.

¶14

Order Date :- 18.10.2024 A. Verma

¶15

(Alok Mathur, J.)

¶16

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

Mohd. Ilyas v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. Rural Development, Govt. of U.P. Lko. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Mohd. Ilyas v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. Rural Development, Govt. of U.P. Lko. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Dhan Raj Vs State of U.P. Thru Prin.Secy. Panchayat Raj Lukcnow and Ors.

Sandeep Kumar Mishra Vs District Magistrate Sultanpur and Another

Brijesh Kumar Yadav Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Panchayati Raj Lko. and 3 Others

Mahendra Singh vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy./ Prin. Secy. Revenue Lko and 2 Others

Ram Sager and Another Vs Union of India Thru. Its General Manager Mn. of Railways Rail Bhavan and 2 Others

Sakir Ali Vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Deptt. of Food and Civil Supplies Lko. and 4 Others