Chandan Pathak vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy., Shri Ajay Chauhan U.P., P.W.D., Lko. and Another

2. Petition has been filed challenging orders dated 08.01.2026, 22.01.2026, 23.01.2026 and 24.01.2026. A prayer has also been made for a direction to opposite parties to permit petitioner to join in Prantiya Khand, Lok Nirman Vibhag, Siddharth Nagar.

¶13

3. It is submitted that earlier petitioner was suspended from service by means of order dated 15.09.2025 attaching him at headquarter, Lucknow. The said order was challenged in Writ-A No.11666 of 2025 and was allowed by means of judgment and order dated 06.11.2025. It is submitted that in view of such quashing of suspension order, petitioner was required to be posted at the earlier place of posting in Siddharth Nagar but since no posting was affected he was compelled to file Writ-A No.13953 of 2025 which was disposed of vide order dated 05.12.2025.

¶14

WRIA No. 2241 of 2026

¶15

2

¶16

4. It is submitted that despite such orders being passed, impugned order has been passed without any final decision on petitioner's representation.

¶17

5. Learned State Counsel has not been provided any written instructions in this matter.

¶18

6. Prima facie submissions advanced by petitioner-inperson have force and require consideration particularly once suspension order stands quashed, without any challenge being raised to the judgment and order dated 06.11.2025, it was incumbent upon opposite parties to have posted petitioner in earlier place of posting in district Siddharth Nagar on the principle of restitution where petitioner was posted prior to suspension order dated 15,09.2025.

¶19

7. In view of aforesaid, learned State Counsel is granted three days' time to obtain written instructions in this matter.

¶20

8. List this case on 09.03.2026, as fresh."

¶21

In pursuance thereof, learned State counsel has been provided written instructions dated 10.03.2026, a copy of which is taken on record and as per which it has been submitted that impugned order is not of transfer but merely posting once the order of suspension from service of petitioner stood quashed by this Court. Reliance has also been placed on judgment rendered by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Namrata Verma versus State of U.P. & Ors. Special Leave Petition No.36717 of 2017 to submit that transfer and posting are instances of service and lies within the discretion of appointing authority.

¶22

Upon consideration of submissions advanced by petitioner in person and learned State counsel, it is thus admitted that vide order dated 15.09.2025, petitioner was placed under suspension from service while attaching him at the Headquarters at Lucknow. The said order was challenged in Writ A No.11666 of 2025 and was quashed by means of judgment and order dated 06.11.2025.

¶23

WRIA No. 2241 of 2026

¶24

3

¶25

Admittedly the aforesaid judgment has attained finality. As indicated earlier in order dated 25.02.2026, once the order of suspension stood quashed in its entirity, it was incumbent upon opposite parties to have placed the petitioner in the same condition and position as he was prior to passing of the said suspension order. That would amount to posting petitioner in Siddharth Nagar where he was posted earlier prior to passing of the order of suspension.

¶26

The ground taken by opposite parties in the written instructions that the impugned order has merely posted the petitioner and not transferred him elsewhere, in the considered opinion of this Court deserved to be rejected merely on account of the fact that once the earlier suspension order stood quashed in its entirity, petitioner was required to be took place in the same condition and position as he was in prior to passing of the order of suspension which stood quashed. The said aspect is quite evident in terms of principle of restitution.

¶27

In view of discussion made here-in-above, the impugned order dated 08.01.2026 pertaining to attachment of petitioner as well as subsequent orders dated 22.01.2026, 23.01.2026 and 24.01.2026 are hereby quashed by issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari. Opposite party no.2 or any other competent authority is directed to issue appropriate orders for posting of petitioner in the Prantiya Khand, Lok Nirman Vibhag, Siddhart Nagar expeditiously within a period of 10 days from the date certified copy of this order is served upon concerned authority and to permit petitioner to join on the said post within a period of one week thereafter.

¶28

This order obviously does not preclude passing of any fresh order of transfer in a routine manner.

¶29

Resultantly, petition succeeds and is allowed at the admission stage itself . Parties to bear their own costs.

¶30

(Manish Mathur,J.)

¶31

March 12, 2026

¶32

Subodh/-

¶33

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

Chandan Pathak v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy., Shri Ajay Chauhan U.P., P.W.D., Lko. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Chandan Pathak v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy., Shri Ajay Chauhan U.P., P.W.D., Lko. and Another

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

Abhinay @ Abhinav Chauhan @ Gulbadan Chauhan vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. Home Lko. and Another

Shailesh Kumar vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Horticulture Evam Food Processing Deptt. Lko. and 3 Others

Shyam Babu vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Cooperative U.P. Lko. and 3 Others

Rajendra Kumar vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Revenue Lko. and 3 Others

Dinesh Kumar and 6 Others vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Revenue Lko. and 3 Others

Devendra Kumar and 14 Others vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Rural Engineering Deptt. Lko. and Another