Disposed

Halim Khan and 39 Others v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. Irrigation and Water Resources Lko. and 2 Others

Allahabad HC22 Jan 2025WRIA/6982/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Tubewell Operators of the Irrigation Department sought transfers to their desired places on grounds of serious illness and parity with other operators already transferred by consent. Court disposed of the petition permitting fresh individual representations to the Engineer-in-Chief, to be decided by reasoned speaking order within four weeks.

What the court decided

AI extract

Halim Khan and 39 Others vs State of U.P. Thru… — Service and Employment | Allahabad HC (2025)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:29966

¶2

Court No. - 18

¶3

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 6982 of 2024

¶4

Petitioner :- Halim Khan And 39 Others Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. Irrigation And Water Resources Lko. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Shobhit Mohan Shukla,Aviral Singh,Manoj Kumar Chaurasiya Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶5

Hon'ble Karunesh Singh Pawar,J.

¶6

Heard Sri Shobhit Mohan Shukla, learned counsel for petitioners and Sri Sandeep Sharma, learned standing counsel for the State-respondents.

¶7

The petitioners by way of this petition have prayed for the following reliefs:-

¶8

"i) to issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the opposite parties to transfer the petitioners at the places /Division/Circle as mentioned in paragraph 7 of the writ petition."

¶9

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that petitioners are presently working as Tubewell Operator at different places. The relevant chart has been given regarding their date of appointment and place of posting as Tubewell Operators in paragraph 6 of the writ petition. The petitioners in their representations by citing genuine reasons with proof have requested for their transfers to their desired place that chart is also given in para 7 of the writ petition.

¶10

The submission of learned counsel for the petitioners is that the petitioners are suffering from renal failure and other serious ailment, their families are also suffering on account of indecision at the level of the State authorities. He submits that several Tubewell Operators of the Department of Irrigation and Water Resources are being continuously transferred on the places of their request or at the places of mutual consent. Some of transfer orders are filed as Annexure no.3 to the writ petition. He submits that petitioners' case is at par with such Tubewell Operators specific pleading in this regard has been made in paragraph Nos.9 and 10 of the writ petition which has not been denied in the counter affidavit.

¶11

Learned standing counsel though has opposed the petition however, does not dispute the pleading made in paragraph 9 of the writ petition however, he has submitted that considering the pleading made in paragraph 4 of the counter affidavit, mass transfers cannot be done at once however, after examining the individual cases whatever cases, the authorities feel fit, the appropriate decision shall be taken.

¶12

In view of above submission made by parties and with the consent of parties, the petition is disposed of granting liberty to the petitioner to file a fresh individual representation to the respondent No.2 i.e. Engineer In Chief/Head of Department (Mechanical) Irrigation and Water Resources, U.P., Lucknow within a period of two weeks, the same shall be considered and disposed of by reasoned and speaking order within a further period of four weeks.

¶13

Order Date :- 20.5.2025 Saurabh Yadav/-

¶14

Digitally signed by :- SAURABH YADAV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Halim Khan and 39 Others v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. Irrigation and Water Resources Lko. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Halim Khan and 39 Others v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. Irrigation and Water Resources Lko. and 2 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

Ashutosh Kumar Upadhyay Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. U.P. Lko. and Another

Amit Kumar Patel Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and 6 Others

Ashutosh Kumar Upadhyay vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. U.P. Lko. and Another

Geeta Mishra Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Vishnu Kumar Tiwari Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Basmati Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and 4 Others