Disposed¶12

Shiva Murati v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Urban Development U.P. Lko. and 3 Others

Allahabad HC2 Jul 2025WRIA/7026/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Transfer order 28.04.2025 Mau to Etah; Executive Officer; spouse/husband-wife joint posting transfer policy; wife Assistant Teacher Ayodhya; vacancies Barabanki Ambedkar Nagar; comprehensive representation Principal Secretary Urban Development; decide within four weeks; disposed without merits; Allahabad High Court Lucknow Bench; Writ-A 7026 of 2025; Abdul Moin; neutral citation 2025:AHC-LKO:37187.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner permitted to submit a comprehensive representation against the transfer order dated 28.04.2025 to respondent no.1 within one week; respondent no.1 to decide it within four weeks in accordance with law and the transfer policy, considering the petitioner's grounds (including posting near his wife's workplace at Ayodhya). ¶12

Shiva Murati Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Urban Development U.P. Lko. and 3 Others — Allahabad HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶12

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioner's posting may be considered at District Ayodhya or any nearby district (posts alleged vacant at Barabanki and Ambedkar Nagar) in terms of the transfer policy providing posting of husband and wife together, the petitioner's wife working as Assistant Teacher at District Ayodhya. +1 more

¶9

Court's answer

It is left open to the petitioner to submit a comprehensive representation against the impugned transfer order dated 28.04.2025 before respondent no.1 (Principal Secretary, Urban Development, Lucknow).

¶12

Ratio / Principle

The present writ petition is disposed of without entering into the merits of the case.

¶12

Key takeaways

Such comprehensive representation is to be submitted within a period of one week from the date of the order.ratio¶13
If such representation is made, respondent no.1 shall proceed to decide the same in accordance with law and the transfer policy, considering the grounds taken by the petitioner in the representation.ratio¶14
The representation is to be decided within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of the representation along with the certified copy of this order.ratio

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad (Lucknow Bench) | WRIT - A No. 7026 of 2025 | Decided 02.07.2025 | Abdul Moin, J. | Neutral Citation 2025:AHC-LKO:37187. Executive Officer Shiva Murati challenged his transfer order dated 28.04.2025 moving him from district Mau to District Etah, seeking posting at Ayodhya or nearby districts (Barabanki, Ambedkar Nagar) since his wife serves as Assistant Teacher at Ayodhya and the transfer policy provides posting of husband and wife together. Without entering into the merits, the Court disposed of the petition: the petitioner may submit a comprehensive representation to respondent no.1 (Principal Secretary, Urban Development) within one week, and respondent no.1 must decide it within four weeks of receipt (with certified copy of this order) in accordance with law and the transfer policy.

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:37187

¶2

Court No. - 5

¶3

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 7026 of 2025

¶4

Petitioner :- Shiva Murati Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Urban Development U.P. Lko. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Ripu Daman Shahi,Ram Kumar Singh

¶5

Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶6

Hon'ble Abdul Moin,J.

¶7

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Pankaj Patel, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the respondents.

¶8

With the consent of learned counsels appearing for the contesting parties, the writ petition is being finally decided.

¶9

Although the petitioner, Executive Officer, has raised a challenge to the transfer order dated 28.04.2025, a copy of which is annexure no.1 to the petition, whereby the petitioner has been transferred from district Mau to District Etah, yet learned counsel for the petitioner states that as the wife of the petitioner is working as Assistant Teacher at District Ayodhya as such the respondents may consider the posting of the petitioner either at District Ayodhya or any nearby District to Ayodhya in terms of the transfer policy which provides posting of husband and wife together. It is also contended that various posts are vacant in adjoining Districts to Ayodhya namely at Barabanki and Ambedkar Nagar.

¶10

Learned counsel for petitioner after arguing at some length prays that in this regard the petitioner may be permitted to submit a comprehensive representation to respondent no.1 i.e. the Principal Secretary, Urban Development, Lucknow and prays that the respondent no.1 be directed to consider the claim of the petitioner in accordance with law and the transfer policy within a specified time.

¶11

To the said prayer, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel has no objection.

¶12

Accordingly, without entering into the merits of the case, the present petition is disposed of leaving it open to the petitioner to submit a comprehensive representation against the impugned transfer order dated 28.04.2025 before respondent no. 1 within

¶13

a period of one week from today.

¶14

In case such a representation is made, respondent no.1 shall proceed to decide the same in accordance with law and transfer policy considering the grounds taken by the petitioner in the representation, which would be decided within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of the representation alongwith certified copy of this order.

¶15

Order Date :- 2.7.2025 A. Katiyar

¶16

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

Shiva Murati v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Urban Development U.P. Lko. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shiva Murati v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Urban Development U.P. Lko. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Lalit Kumar Jain Vs United India Insureence Compnay Ltd.through Chairman

Smt. Shabnam Malik Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Energy Up Civil Sectt. Lko. and 2 Others

Ram Kumar Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Sugar Industries U.P. Govt. Lko. and 3 Others

Shyam Sundar and Another vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy./ Prin. Secy., Pichharavarg Kalyan Vibhag Lko. and 2 Others

Manoj Kumar vs State of U.P. Thru. Collector, Faizabad and Others

Shiva Murati vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Urban Development U.P. Lko. and 3 Others