Disposed

Prateek Singh v. Union of India and 4 Others

Allahabad HC9 Jan 2025WRIA/164/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Challenge to a service transfer order and claim for regularization in the Material Management Department. The court held transfer is an incident of service reviewable only for malafides or statutory infraction, neither shown, and directed the competent authority to decide the absorption claim within three months.

What did the court decide?

Direction to respondent No. 4 to consider petitioner's claim for absorption in Material Management Department within three months; transfer order not interfered with; petitioner to join at new posting

Prateek Singh vs Union of India and 4 Others — Service and Employment | Allahabad HC (2025)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:4672

¶2

Court No. - 5

¶3

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 164 of 2025

¶4

Petitioner :- Prateek Singh

¶5

Respondent :- Union Of India And 4 Others

¶6

Counsel for Petitioner :- Gulab Chandra,Kamal Bhanu Singh,Rupesh Kumar Singh

¶7

Counsel for Respondent :- A.S.G.I.

¶8

Hon'ble Ajay Bhanot,J.

¶9

The petitioner is aggrieved by an order of transfer dated 02.01.2025 passed by the respondent No. 4.

¶10

It is settled law that transfer is an incident of service. The scope of judicial review in regard to transfer is limited. The order of transfer can be assailed on the limited grounds of malafides or infraction of statute. The said grounds are not established. No employee has a vested right to be transferred to any place of his/her choice.

¶11

The transfer policy does not confer any enforceable rights upon the petitioners. No interference is warranted in the impugned order of transfer.

¶12

The second prayer of the petitioner regarding regularization in the Material Management Department shall now to be examined.

¶13

The petitioner claims that he is entitled for regularization in the Material Management Department.

¶14

Shri Arvind Goswami, learned counsel for the respondent No. 1 contends that the claim for regularization requires

¶15

factual adjudication as per the applicable law in the first instance by the competent authority. He fairly submits that the matter is liable to decided within a reasonable period of time.

¶16

In the wake of preceding discussions and without going into the merits of the case, the respondent No. 4 i.e. General Manager (Karmik)/Head of the Department (Establishment), Northern Coal Fields Limited Singrauli, District Singrauli is directed to consider the claim for absorption in Material Management Department as per law preferably, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order along with a fresh copy of the representation.

¶17

It is clarified that the petitioner shall join at the new place of posting. In case the petitioner fails to report at his place of posting, appropriate departmental inquiry can be taken out against him.

¶18

Writ petition is disposed of.

¶19

Order Date :- 9.1.2025 Jaswant

¶20

Digitally signed by :- JASWANT KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Prateek Singh v. Union of India and 4 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Prateek Singh v. Union of India 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

Similar cases

Susheel Kumar vs Union of India and 4 Others

Naresh Chandra Sharma and Anoter vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Kranti Kumari vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt of Home Lko. and 2 Others

Shivam Pandey vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Banshi Dhar Rajpoot vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Rani Verma vs State of U.P.