Dinesh Kumar Yadav Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Irrigation and Water Resources Deptt. and Another

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:4799

¶2

Court No. - 5

¶3

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 6935 of 2024

¶4

Petitioner :- Dinesh Kumar Yadav

¶5

Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Irrigation And Water Resources Deptt. And Another Counsel for Petitioner :- Shambhoo Sharan Lal Srivastava Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Jogendra Nath Verma

¶6

Hon'ble Abdul Moin,J.

¶7

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for respondent no.1, and Sri Jogendra Nath Verma, learned counsel for respondent no.2.

¶8

Under challenge is the order dated 01.08.2024, a copy of which is Annexure-1 to the writ petition, so far as it pertains to posting the petitioner as Deputy Revenue Officer with the Deputy Director, Irrigation & Water Resources, Lucknow, against the vacant post.

¶9

The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that initially the petitioner had been placed under suspension. After due inquiry, the petitioner had been punished vide order dated 21.06.2023, a copy of which is Annexure-14 to the petition, by a minor penalty. On account of suspension as the petitioner had been attached consequently an order dated 27.06.2023, a copy of which is part of Annexure-16 to the writ petition, was issued by the State Government directing the respondent no.2 to send back the petitioner to his original place of posting which is said to be Mahoba.

¶10

Subsequent thereto, vide order dated 25.06.2024, a copy of which is Annexure-17 to the writ petition, the State Government has required the respondent no.2 to pass an

¶11

appropriate order pertaining to ending of the attachment of the petitioner at the level of respondent no.2 himself.

¶12

In pursuance thereof, the order impugned dated 01.08.2024 has been passed whereby the petitioner has been posted with the Deputy Director, Irrigation & Water Resources, Lucknow. Being aggrieved, instant petition has been filed.

¶13

The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that as the petitioner at the time of he being placed under suspension was working as Deputy Revenue Officer and was also having the charge of Soil Conservation Officer at Mahoba consequently once the suspension has been ended and the petitioner has also been penalized with a minor penalty as such he should be returned back to the original post as Deputy Revenue Officer and was also having the charge of Soil Conservation Officer at Mahoba and there cannot be any occasion for the respondents to have posted the petitioner at Lucknow.

¶14

In this regard, reliance has been placed on the order of the State Government dated 22.04.2008, a copy of which has been filed as Annexure SRA-2 to the Supplementary Rejoinder Affidavit dated 03/18.10.2024 to contend that the State Government has directed as under:-

¶15

" भभूममि ससंर्ቌण अधधिककाररी ( शቦኔणरी -2) कቦኔ पद पर पቚኘ्ቐमति करनቦኔ अथवका

¶16

भभूममि ससंर्ቌण अधधिककाररी कቦኔ रर्ሹ पद पर ककारर करनቦኔ हቦኔतितु अधधिककति करनቦኔ / पकथक करनቦኔ कका अधधिककार शकासन कቦኔ अधधिककार ्ቌቦኔ्ቔ मिम हह , रमद मकसरी पकरण मिम जनमहति / पशकासमनक दृमቖኌ सቦኔ पररवतिरन मकरका जकानका जरूररी हह तिቚኘ पकरण / पस्तिकाव सकाቌኚरोሱ एवसं अपनरी संतितुमति समहति शकासन स कቚኘ सन्दमभरति मकरका जकाए , धजसमिम शकासन ककी अनतुमिमति / स्वरीककमति अवश्र पका्቎ ककी जकारቦኔगरी। आदቦኔश कका कड़काई सቦኔ पकालन सतुमनशश्ति करቦኔ। "

¶17

The contention is that the order impugned so far as it posts the petitioner at Lucknow has been passed without the approval of the State Government which thus vitiates the order impugned apart from the fact that there is no post of Deputy Revenue Officer at Lucknow and thus the order impugned merits to be quashed so far as it pertains to posting the petitioner at Lucknow.

¶18

On the other hand, Sri Jogendra Nath Verma, learned counsel for respondent no.2, has argued that a perusal of the order impugned dated 01.08.2024 would itself indicate as to why it has not been found necessary to post the petitioner back at Mahoba. In this regard, a vigilance inquiry which is pending against the petitioner has also been highlighted.

¶19

On merits, it has been contended that so far as the order dated 22.04.2008 is concerned over which reliance has been placed by the learned counsel for the petitioner, an order could be passed with the approval of the State Government. In this case, the State Government itself vide its order dated 25.06.2024 had required the respondent no.2 to pass an order on its own accord and considering this the petitioner has been posted at Lucknow.

¶20

Further, reliance has been placed on the order dated 27.04.2005, a copy of which is Annexure 1 to the Short Counter Affidavit filed on behalf of respondent no.2, to contend that the said order itself indicates that for every Regional Deputy Director two Deputy Revenue Officers are to be attached.

¶21

It is contended that so far as the case of the petitioner is concerned once the State Government had itself required the respondent no.2 to pass an order on its own accord and

¶22

considering the reasons as have prevailed on respondent no.2 of not posting the petitioner back at Mahoba itself rather he has been posted at Lucknow and there is no element of reduction of his salary or any of the benefits consequently there cannot be any occasion for the petitioner to insist for his posting back at Mahoba.

¶23

Heard learned counsels for the parties and perused the records.

¶24

From perusal of the records, it emerges that initially the petitioner had been suspended while working as Deputy Revenue Officer and holding the charge of Soil Conservation Officer at Mahoba and he had been attached to Lucknow. Thereafter, the petitioner has been visited with a minor penalty vide the order dated 21.06.2023. When the attachment of the petitioner was not ended an order dated 27.06.2023 was issued for ending the attachment of the petitioner and for sending him back to Mahoba. The same has been followed by an order of the State Government dated 25.06.2024 requiring the respondent no.2 to end the attachment of the petitioner and to pass appropriate orders at the end of respondent no.2 himself. In pursuance thereof, the attachment of the petitioner has been ended and he has been posted as Deputy Revenue Officer with the Deputy Director, Irrigation & Water Resources, Lucknow, by order dated 01.08.2024.

¶25

A perusal of the order impugned dated 01.08.2024 would indicate the reasons which have prevailed upon respondent no.2 in not posting back the petitioner at Mahoba itself. The said order also indicates about pendency of a vigilance inquiry against the petitioner.

¶26

Be that as it may the fact of the matter remains that even as per the order of the State Government dated 22.04.2008 an order could be passed by respondent no.2 with the approval of the State Government. In this case, the State Government itself vide order dated 25.06.2024 had required the respondent no.2 to post the petitioner on his own accord and consequently once the petitioner has been posted with the Deputy Director, Irrigation & Water Resources, Lucknow and there is no reduction either in the salary or any other benefits of the petitioner as such it cannot be said that any fault has been committed by the respondents while posting the petitioner at Lucknow.

¶27

Keeping in view the aforesaid discussion no case for interference is made out. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed .

¶28

Order Date :- 24.1.2025 A. Katiyar

¶29

Digitally signed by :- AMIT KATIYAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Dinesh Kumar Yadav v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Irrigation and Water Resources Deptt. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dinesh Kumar Yadav v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Irrigation and Water Resources Deptt. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Radheyshyam Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Basic Education and 2 Others

Iffat Aara @ Ara Vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Secondary Edu. Lko and 4 Others

Anil Kumar Mehrotra Vs Union of India Thru. Secy. Ministry of Communication Govt. of India New Delhi and 2 Others

Suresh Chandra and Another Vs Union of India Thru. Secy. Ministry of Communication Govt. of India New Delhi and 2 Others

Kailash Nath Chaturvedi Vs U.O.I. Thru. Its Secy. Deptt. of Telecommunications, Ministry of Comm. New Delhi and 2 Others

Krishna Kumar Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Secondary Education Lko. and 7 Others