Allowed¶26

Dr. Pragya Singh v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Ayush Lucknow and 2 Others

Allahabad HC21 Nov 2025WRIA/8943/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Cancellation of request/compassionate transfer without reasons held unsustainable; Homeopathic Medical Officer, Department of Ayush, Government of U.P.; government order dated 6th May 2025 (annual transfer policy); impugned order dated 14th June 2025; cryptic order; counter affidavit silent; Court directions dated 23.07.2025, 28.07.2025, 08.08.2025; writ in the nature of Certiorari; earlier Director suspended; Allahabad High Court Lucknow Bench; WRIT-A No. 8943 of 2025; Manish Mathur, J.

What did the court decide?

The impugned transfer order dated 14th June 2025 is quashed by issuance of writ in the nature of Certiorari, with consequences to follow; parties to bear their own costs. ¶26

Dr. Pragya Singh Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Ayush Lucknow and 2 Others — Allahabad HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

The impugned transfer order dated 14th June 2025 is quashed by issuance of writ in the nature of Certiorari, with consequences to follow; parties to bear their own costs.

¶26

Issue for consideration

Whether the impugned order dated 14th June 2025 cancelling the petitioner's transfer effected on her own request, which discloses no reasons for the cancellation, is legally sustainable.

¶12

Court's answer

The impugned cancellation order does not reflect any reasoning whatsoever for cancelling the petitioner's transfer effected on compassionate grounds; its only indication is cancellation due to unavoidable circumstances.

¶17

Ratio / Principle

Once a transfer has been effected in favour of the petitioner on her own request, it was incumbent upon the opposite parties to have indicated some reason for cancellation of the order.

¶19

Key takeaways

Since this Court had specifically required the opposite parties to indicate the reasons for cancelling the transfer order, it would have been incumbent at least then to indicate some cogent reason for the cancellation; the counter affidavit remained as cryptic as the impugned order.ratio¶20

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ-A No. 8943 of 2025 (Allahabad High Court, Lucknow Bench; Manish Mathur, J.; decided 21.11.2025): The petitioner, a Homeopathic Medical Officer, had been transferred on her own request on compassionate grounds pursuant to the government order (annual transfer policy) dated 06.05.2025, the transfer having been allowed on 14.06.2025; an impugned order of the same date cancelled the transfer, citing only 'unavoidable circumstances' and disclosing no reasons. Despite three specific opportunities created by this Court (orders dated 23.07.2025, 28.07.2025 and 08.08.2025) and the counter affidavit filed therein, no reason for the cancellation was indicated. Holding that where a transfer has been effected on an employee's own request it was incumbent upon the authorities to indicate some reason for cancelling it, the Court quashed the impugned transfer order by writ of Certiorari; petition allowed, parties to bear their own costs.

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW

¶2

WRIT - A No. - 8943 of 2025

Dr. Pragya Singh

.....Petitioner(s)

Versus

State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Of Ayush Lucknow And 2 Others .....Respondent(s) Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Sunny Sharma, Abhinav Srivastava Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C.

¶7

Court No. - 7

¶8

HON'BLE MANISH MATHUR, J.

¶9

Heard Mr. Abhinav Srivastava and Mr. Sunny Sharma learned counsel for petitioners and learned state counsel for opposite parties.

¶10

Petition has been filed challenging order dated 14th June 2025 whereby petitioner's earlier transfer on her request has been cancelled.

¶11

It has been submitted that earlier in terms of government order dated 6th May 2025, petitioner had submitted an application seeking transfer as per options on compassionate basis. The said application was allowed by means of order dated 14th June 2025 but has been cancelled by means of impugned order order passed on the same date.

¶12

It is submitted that a bare perusal of impugned order will make it evident that no reasons whatsoever have been indicated for cancellation of transfer of petitioner. It is therefore submitted that the order is cryptic and does not advert to any reasons or even public policy to cancel the order effected in favor of petitioner earlier.

¶13

Learned state counsel on the basis of counter affidavit has refuted submissions advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner with the submission that the annual transfer policy was issued by the government vide order dated 6th May 2025 which stipulates that the transfer of group D personnel shall be effected by the heads of the respective departments after consultation with the Hon'ble Minister of the department concerned. It is

¶14

WRIA No. 8943 of 2025

¶15

¶16

submitted that the petitioner is in service as a Homeopathic Medical Officer and was transferred on request but due to unavoidable circumstances, all transfer orders issued on the basis of public interest and personal request relating to group B, C and D category personnel were cancelled by the then Director, vide impugned order. It is submitted that since all the transfer orders were cancelled, petitioners' order was also cancelled. It is also submitted that the earlier director was thereafter placed under suspension and departmental proceedings have been initiated against him.

¶17

Upon consideration of submissions advanced by learned counsel for parties and perusal of material on record, specifically the impugned order, it is evident that petitioner's transfer has been effected as per her request on compassionate grounds. The impugned order however, does not reflect any reasoning whatsoever for cancelling the aforesaid transfer order. The only indication is that it is being cancelled due to unavoidable circumstances.

¶18

This court vide order dated 23rd July 2025 had specifically required the opposite parties to indicate reason for cancellation of the transfer order. The said query was repeated on 28th July 2025 and 8th August 2025. Time had also been granted for filing counter affidavit which has subsequently been filed but again fails to indicate any reason for cancellation of transfer order except to state that it is being done due to unavoidable circumstances.

¶19

In the considered opinion of this court, once a transfer had been effected in favour of the petitioner on her own request, in case of any cancellation, it was incumbent upon the opposite parties to have indicated some reason for cancellation of the order,.

¶20

Even otherwise once this court has specifically required the opposite parties to indicate reasons for cancellation of the transfer order, it would be incumbent at least then to have indicated some cogent reason for cancellation of the transfer order.

¶21

Despite the aforesaid aspects, the counter affidavit is as cryptic as the impugned order itself.

¶22

In view of aforesaid, the impugned transfer order dated 14th June 2025 is hereby quashed by issuance of writ in the nature of Certiorari. Consequences

¶23

WRIA No. 8943 of 2025

¶24

¶25

to follow.

¶26

Resultantly, the petition succeeds and is allowed. Parties to bear their own costs.

¶27

(Manish Mathur,J.)

¶28

November 21, 2025

¶29

prabhat

¶30

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

Dr. Pragya Singh v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Ayush Lucknow and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dr. Pragya Singh v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Ayush Lucknow and 2 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

Ajay Kumar Pandey Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Medical and Health Services Lko. and 2 Others

Dr. Ajay Kumar Vaidya vs the State of U.P. Thru. the Prin. Secy. Medical and Health Deptt. and 3 Others

Dr. Ajay Kumar Vaidya vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Medical and Health Deptt., Lucknow and 3 Others

Shivansh Singh Vs State of U.P. Thru. Its Prin. Secy. Medical and Health U.P. Lko. and Others

Om Prakash Singh Yadav Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Minor Irrigation Deptt. Lko. and Another

Prashant Shrivastava and 470 Others Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. of Medical Health and Family Welfare Lko. and 2 Others