Madhubala Vs State of U.P. Thru. Its Addl. Chief Secy./Prin. Secy. State Tax Lko and 4 Others

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:589

¶2

Court No. - 6

¶3

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 20 of 2025

¶4

Petitioner :- Madhubala

¶5

Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Its Addl. Chief Secy./Prin. Secy. State Tax Lko And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Gaurav Mehrotra,Utsav Mishra Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶6

Hon'ble Alok Mathur,J.

¶7

Heard Sri Gaurav Mehrotra, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Standing Counsel for the respondents.

¶8

It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that according to transfer policy framed by the State Government for the year 2024-25, at Clause V it has been provided that in case any child of a Government employee is about to appear in Board Examination, they would not be transferred.

¶9

It has been fairly submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that he has not assailed the impugned order of transfer but only submits that till the Board Examinations of her daughter are held, the impugned order of transfer dated 9.12.2024, should be deferred.

¶10

Learned Standing Counsel while opposing the writ petition has submitted that it is settled proposition of law that no Government employee can choose his place of posting. The petitioner in any way does not have any vested right for being posted at any particular place of posting.

¶11

Learned counsel for the petitioner at this stage submits that in such circumstances, the Hon'ble Apex Court has also interferred and he has relied upon the judgment of Director of School Education, Madras and Others Vs. O. Karuppa Thevan and Another, 1994 Supp (2) SCC 666, wherein the Court has observed as under :-

¶12

"2. The tribunal has erred in law in holding that the respondent employee ought to have been heard before transfer. No law requires an employee to be heard before his transfer when the authorities make the transfer for the exigencies of administration. However, the learned counsel for the respondent, contended that in view of the fact that respondent's children are studying in school, the transfer should not have been effected during mid-academic term. Although there is no

¶13

such rule, we are of the view that in effecting transfer, the fact that the children of an employee are studying should be given due weight, if the exigencies of the service are not urgent. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant was unable to point out that there was such urgency in the present case that the employee could not have been accommodated till the end of the current academic year. We, therefore, while setting aside the impugned order of the Tribunal, direct that the appellant should not effect the transfer till the end of the current academic year. The appeal is allowed accordingly with no order as to costs."

¶14

It is further submitted looking to the fact that children of the Government employee have to appear in Board examination, similar orders have been passed by this Court in Litil Kumar Verma Vs. State of U.P. and Another, (2004) 4 AWC 3415 (2), Writ Petition No. 14176 (S/S) of 2020 - Ajai Kumar Bajpai Vs. State of U.P. and Others (decided on 31.08.2020), Writ Petition No. 21105 (S/S) of 2019 - Pradeep Kumar Vs. State of U.P. and Others (decided on 02.08.2019), Writ Petition No. 87 (S/S) of 2019 - Havanesh Malara Vs. State of U.P. and Others (decided on 24.01.2019), Writ Petition No. 32973 (S/S) of 2018 - Karunesh Dwivedi Vs. State of U.P. and Others (decided on 06.02.2019), Writ Petition No. 23221 of 2019 - Smt. Archana Mishra Vs. State of U.P. and Others (decided on 14.02.2020) etc.

¶15

It has been stated in para 16 of the writ petition that petitioner's daughter is studying in Class XIIth at La Martiniere Girls' College, Lucknow and in support of his submissions he has claimed various fee receipts. It is submitted that daughter of petitioner would be appearing in ensuing Board Examinations which would be held in April, 2024, and keeping in mind the said examinations, the petitioner should be allowed to continue at the present place of posting.

¶16

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

¶17

Considering the judgments cited by the petitioner and also considering that in the transfer policy guidelines, framed by the State Government, specially law laid down by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Director of School Education, Madras and Others Vs. O. Karuppa Thevan and Another (supra), it is provided that transfer order of the petitioner dated 9.12.2024 as well as reliving order dated 18.12.2024 shall be kept in abeyance and the respondents shall pass fresh orders attaching the petitioner at any post in Lucknow. The said exercise shall be undertaken within 10 days from the date of production of certified copy of this order.

¶18

The petitioner shall give an undertaking to opposite party No.2 to the effect that she shall join at the transferred place of posting immediately on conclusion of the last examination of the daughter of the petitioner i.e. 15th May, 2025 without demur along with representation and a certified copy of this order.

¶19

It is provided that the petitioner shall join at the fresh place of posting and shall not raise any dispute with regard to fresh order of transfer.

¶20

With above directions the writ petition stands disposed of.

¶21

(Alok Mathur, J.)

¶22

Order Date :- 6.1.2025 RKM.

¶23

Digitally signed by :- RAKESH KUMAR MAURYA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Madhubala v. State of U.P. Thru. Its Addl. Chief Secy./Prin. Secy. State Tax Lko and 4 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Madhubala v. State of U.P. Thru. Its Addl. Chief Secy./Prin. Secy. State Tax Lko and 4 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Rajesh Kumar Mishra Vs State of U.P.Thru Prin.Secy.Bal Vikas Sewa and Pusthar and Ors.

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

Ram Prasad and 2 Others vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. of Revenue Lko. and 3 Others

Rajendra Prasad Singh Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Labour Deptt. Lko and 2 Others

Om Prakash Saxena Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. of Irrigation and Water Resources Lko. and 5 Others

Shyam Bali Yadav Pno No. 840600255 Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko and 2 Others