Disposed

Gyanendra Singh v. Chairman Cum Managing Director Rashtriya Ispat Nigam Limited and 3 Others

Allahabad HC9 Feb 2024WRIA/963/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition challenging the rejection of a representation for transfer to a native place citing disability. The Court held that while guidelines for posting disabled persons near home are discretionary, the respondents failed to consider the relevant office memorandums. Petition disposed of with a direction to consider the petitioner for posting near his native place in the next routine transfer

What did the court decide?

Directing opposite parties to consider petitioner for posting near his native place in the next routine transfer.

Gyanendra Singh vs Chairman Cum Managing… — Labour and Industrial Disputes | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:12074

¶2

Court No. - 17

¶3

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 963 of 2024

¶4

Petitioner :- Gyanendra Singh

¶5

Respondent :- Chairman Cum Managing Director Rashtriya Ispat Nigam Limited And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Indrajeet Shukla,Sanjay Kumar Singh

¶6

Counsel for Respondent :- Manish Jauhari

¶7

Hon'ble Manish Mathur,J.

¶8

Heard Mr. Indrajeet Shukla, learned counsel for petitioner and Mr. Manish Jauhari, learned counsel for opposite parties.

¶9

Petition has been filed challenging order dated 14.12.2023 whereby petitioner's representation against transfer has been rejected. Also under challenge is the order dated 10.05.2022 whereby petitioner has been transferred from Raebareli to Visakhapatnam on the post of Deputy Manager, Sales and Purchase.

¶10

At the very outset, learned counsel for opposite parties has raised a preliminary objection regarding maintainability of this petition due to lack of territorial jurisdiction since the impugned order has been passed by the authority at Visakhapatnam. It has also been submitted that earlier as well petitioner had challenged the impugned transfer order dated 10.05.2022, which was dismissed and upheld by Hon'ble Supreme Court and therefore, present petition is a second writ petition, which is barred.

¶11

Learned counsel for petitioner has refuted the aforesaid submissions with the submission that the passing of subsequent order dated 14.12.2023 gives fresh impetus to petitioner's grievances, which can very well be adjudicated upon in the

¶12

present petition.

¶13

Upon consideration of submissions advanced by learned counsel for parties, it is evident that by means of order dated 10.05.2022, petitioner who was posted in District- Raebareli has been transferred to Visakhapatnam. The said order was challenged by petitioner earlier as well in Writ-A No.4136 of 2022, which was entertained.

¶14

In view of aforesaid fact that petitioner has been transferred from District- Raebareli, which comes within the territorial jurisdiction of this Court, part cause of action would accrue to petitioner. Similarly, since after passing of the transfer order dated 10.05.2022, his representation has been rejected by means of order dated 14.12.2023, fresh cause of action clearly accrues to petitioner.

¶15

On the aforesaid twin factors, this petition is held to be maintainable before this Court.

¶16

Learned counsel for petitioner submits that petitioner is a disabled person with a disability of 45 percent. He has drawn attention to the office memorandum dated 10.05.1990 issued by the opposite party whereby it has been provided that physically handicapped persons in Group-C or Group-D posts should as far as possible be given a posting near their native places.

¶17

Vide subsequent order dated 13.03.2022 issued by the Government of India, the protection of office memorandum dated 10.05.1990 has been extended to persons belonging to Group-A and B posts as well.

¶18

Learned counsel has also adverted to the office memorandum issued by the Government of India dated 31.03.2014 to submit that directions/ guidelines have been

¶19

issued for exempting people with disabilities from rotational transfer policy as far as possible.

¶20

It is therefore submitted that once the opposite parties themselves have issued such guidelines, which may not be in mandatory terms but is definitely required to be followed by the opposite parties themselves, which has not been done.

¶21

Learned counsel for opposite parties has refuted submissions advanced by learned counsel for petitioner with the submission that petitioner had earlier challenged the same transfer order dated 10.05.2022 in Writ-A No.4136 of 2022, which was dismissed vide order dated 19.04.2023 although granting petitioner liberty to file an application seeking transfer to his native place on account of disability. The said judgment was upheld by the Supreme Court in the order dated 14.08.2023 passed in Special Leave Petition (Civil) Diary No.18288 of 2023 whereafter petitioner filed a Civil Misc. Review Application Defective No.218 of 2023, which was also dismissed by learned Single Judge vide order dated 11.10.2023 against which he filed Special Appeal No.527 of 2023, which was disposed of vide order dated 22.11.2023 in which also no interference was made in the judgment and order rendered in the earlier petition with only an observation that representation so made by petitioner would be considered sympathetically having regard to disability of petitioner and his joining shall abide outcome of the representation so made.

¶22

Upon consideration of submissions advanced by learned counsel for parties and perusal of material on record, it is evident that petitioner has earlier challenged the transfer order dated 10.05.2022 in a petition which was dismissed granting liberty to move an application seeking transfer near his native place. Said order was upheld by Hon'ble Supreme Court with

¶23

review being rejected thereafter and also being upheld in special appeal. However, in all the cases, petitioner was granted liberty to file an application/ representation before the opposite parties, which was filed and has now been rejected by means of order dated 14.12.2023.

¶24

From a perusal of the order dated 19.04.2023 passed in the earlier writ petition, it is evident that the same was dismissed primarily on the ground that there is no right vested in the petitioner against transfer. The said finding has been upheld by Hon'ble Supreme Court as well.

¶25

In the present petition, challenge has been raised to the impugned order dated 14.12.2023 primarily on the ground that petitioner's case for redressal of grievance has not been done in terms of the office memorandum dated 10.05.1990, 13.03.2002 and 31.03.2014 whereby the opposite parties have not considered the aspect of posting petitioner near his native place in the light of disability.

¶26

A perusal of the impugned order dated 14.12.2023 however indicates that the dispute regarding petitioner's transfer was examined and it was concluded that since petitioner would continue in the same nature of job, his posting would not cause any hardship to him or physical discomfort as a physically disabled person in discharging his day to day official duties.

¶27

The office memorandums on which petitioner is placing reliance clearly is couched in discretionary terms without any vested right being accrued in favour of the employee as has been held by this Court vide order dated 19.04.2023 passed in the earlier writ petition.

¶28

At the same time, a Division Bench of this Court in the case

¶29

of Param Singh and Others Vs. State of U.P. and Others, 2018 SCC OnLine Allahabad 5677 has held that although guidelines even pertaining to transfers are not mandatory but discretionary in nature but should as far as possible be adhered to by the competent authorities since such guidelines are applicable upon them as well.

¶30

In the present case, it is admitted that petitioner is a physically handicapped person whose native place is Kanpur City, near the place of posting in Raebareli. It is also admitted that now petitioner by means of the impugned order has been posted in Visakhapatnam, which is a considerable distance away, while petitioner's disability has not been denied.

¶31

It is also evident that the aspect of posting petitioner near his native place has not been considered by the opposite parties in the impugned order dated 14.12.2023, which has adverted only to the aspect that since petitioner would be continuing in the same nature of job i.e. a desk job, it would not cause any hardship or physical discomfort to him. Clearly, the opposite parties have not considered the aspect of the office memorandum dated 10.05.1990 as amended vide office memorandum dated 13.03.2002 and the office memorandum dated 31.03.2014.

¶32

However, since admittedly petitioner does not derive any vested right for a particular posting and also in view of earlier dismissal of his writ petition, which was upheld by Hon'ble Supreme Court, this Court does not find any occasion to interfere with the impugned orders dated 10.05.2022 and 14.12.2023.

¶33

In the light of the aforesaid office memorandums and the transfer policy dated 08.03.2019, the opposite parties are hereby

¶34

directed to consider petitioner for posting near his native place in the next routine transfer.

¶35

In view of the aforesaid directions, the present writ petition stands disposed of.

¶36

Order Date :- 9.2.2024 Mohd. Sharif

¶37

Digitally signed by :- MOHAMMAD SHARIF High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Gyanendra Singh v. Chairman Cum Managing Director Rashtriya Ispat Nigam Limited and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gyanendra Singh v. Chairman Cum Managing Director Rashtriya Ispat Nigam Limited and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

C/M Shri Gandhi Rashtriya Vidyalaya Inter College Thru. Its Manager Ram Ratan Gupta and Another Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin.Secy. Secondary Education and 4 Others

Ram Dhan Shukla Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Institutional Finance, Lko. and Others

Munindra Kumar Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Madhyamik Shiksha Lko. and 6 Others

Gyanendra Singh Vs Chairman Cum Managing Director Rashtriya Ispat Nigam Limited and 3 Others

C/M Maulana Abdul Kalam Azad Anusuchit Jati Balika Prathmik Vidyalaya, Balia Thru. Manager and Anr. Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy., Social Welfare Deptt. Lucknow and Others

Tribhuvan Maurya Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Cooperative Lko. and 4 Others