Disposed

Prabhat Srivastava v. Union of India Thru. Secy. Govt. of India, Ministry of Home Affairs New Delhi and 3 Others

Allahabad HC1 Apr 2026WRIA/3506/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition challenging transfer order and rejection of representation on medical grounds. Court stayed impugned orders prima facie, noting rejection was proforma and grounds not considered. Gramed four weeks for counter.

What did the court decide?

Impugned orders stayed till further orders; four weeks granted to file counter.

Prabhat Srivastava vs Union of India Thru. Secy… — Service and Employment | Allahabad HC (2026)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW

¶2

WRIT - A No. - 3506 of 2026

Prabhat Srivastava

.....Petitioner(s)

Versus

Union Of India Thru. Secy. Govt. Of India, Ministry Of Home Affairs New Delhi And 3 Others

¶7

.....Respondent(s)

¶8

Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Avinash Singh Vishen, Nishant Pandey Counsel for Respondent(s) : A.S.G.I.

¶9

Court No. - 18

¶10

HON'BLE KARUNESH SINGH PAWAR, J.

¶11

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri S.B. Pandey, learned Senior Advocate and Deputy Solicitor General of India, assisted by Sri Anand Dwivedi, Advocate, for the respondents.

¶12

By means of the present petition, petitioner has assailed the impugned transfer order dated 07.01.2026 as well as the order rejecting his representation, purportedly passed post facto, dated 20.02.2026. A further prayer has been made for issuing directions to the respondents to consider and decide the representation dated 24.02.2026, in light of the report of the Medical Officer, Transfer Policy, and other relevant orders, which is pending before respondent No. 3, as contained in Annexure No. 3.

¶13

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner's wife is undergoing In Vitro Fertilization (IVF) treatment at Lucknow. She is a State Government employee and requires regular medical attention, supervision, frequent check-ups, and the presence of the petitioner. In support thereof, reliance has been placed on the medical opinion dated 25.02.2026, contained as Annexure No. 9.

¶14

It is further submitted that the impugned transfer order has been passed in a mechanical manner without due consideration of the petitioner's representation. The rejection order is a one-line, non-speaking order, contained as Annexure No. 2, and is in violation of the transfer policy. It is also contended that the medical opinion furnished by the Office of the Commandant of CRPF, Bjinour, Lucknow, has been ignored, wherein it has

¶15

WRIA No. 3506 of 2026

¶16

¶17

been specifically opined that the case of the petitioner's wife is genuine and that the presence of both husband and wife together is essential for the successful course of infertility treatment and management of a high-risk pregnancy requiring specialized care.

¶18

It is also submitted that under the transfer policy, as contained in Annexure No. 4, provisions relating to 'Special Category/Retention' have been provided in Clause 7. He has drawn the attention of this Court to the medical grounds mentioned in Clause 7, Item No. 1, wherein 'Infertility' has been specifically mentioned as a ground to be considered for retention of an employee.

¶19

Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents has opposed the petition and submitted that the petitioner has already completed three years at the present place of posting, and a relieving order has also been passed during the course of the day.

¶20

In response, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the relieving order aforesaid has been issued after filing of the present writ petition and would be covered by the doctrine of ' lis pendens'.

¶21

Perused the record.

¶22

From a perusal of the impugned orders contained in Annexure Nos. 1 and 2, it prima facie appears that the representation of the petitioner has been rejected by a proforma order without assigning any reasons, and the grounds raised by the petitioner do not appear to have been duly considered.

¶23

In view of the above, prima facie, matter requires consideration.

¶24

Accordingly, till further orders of this Court, the impugned orders contained in Annexure Nos. 1 and 2 shall remain stayed.

¶25

Learned counsel appearing for the respondents prays for and is granted four weeks' time to file a counter affidavit.

¶26

List this matter on 14.05.2026.

¶27

April 1, 2026 Vinay/-

¶28

(Karunesh Singh Pawar,J.)

¶29

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

Prabhat Srivastava v. Union of India Thru. Secy. Govt. of India, Ministry of Home Affairs New Delhi and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Prabhat Srivastava v. Union of India Thru. Secy. Govt. of India, Ministry of Home Affairs New Delhi and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Hari Ram vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy./ Addl. Chief Secy. Rural Development, Lko. and 4 Others

Ankur Singh and 12 Others vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Addl. Chief Secy. Forest Deptt. Lko. and 2 Others

Suman Singh vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Bal Vikas and Pushtahar Lko. and 6 Others

Keshav Lal and 9 Others vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy., P.W.D., Govt. of U.P., Lko.

Avinath Yadav vs State of U.P. Thru. the Prin. Secy., Public Work Deptt., Govt. of U.P., Lko.

Mohd. Mustafa Alias Mohd. Mustpha vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Forest Deptt. Lko. and 2 Others