Disposed¶18

Mohd. Azad Ansari (PNO-170952941) v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and 2 Others

Allahabad HC27 Jan 2026WRIA/712/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Couple posting; compassionate ground transfer; representation rejected 06.10.2025; Government Order dated 29.03.2018; Government Order dated 23.06.2025 (present transfer policy); district Amethi; district Shrawasti/Shraswasti; prior writ Writ-A No. 11409 of 2025 disposed 24.09.2025; transfer session over; no vested right; liberty for fresh representation in next annual routine transfers; petition disposed of; Manish Mathur, J.; Lucknow Bench, Allahabad High Court.

What did the court decide?

Petition disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to make a fresh representation during the next annual routine transfers for couple posting, to be considered by the appropriate authority prior to passing of the next annual transfer; no further relief granted at this stage. ¶18

Mohd. Azad Ansari (PNO-170952941) vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and 2 Others — Allahabad HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶18

Issue for consideration

Whether petitioner's representation for couple posting (transfer from district Amethi to district Shrawasti on compassionate ground) was considered in light of the applicable Government Order, and whether the Court should interfere with its rejection at this stage.

¶16

Court's answer

Although petitioner's representation for couple posting was not considered in light of the provisions of the Government Order applicable to him, the Court declined to grant indulgence at this stage, since almost seven months had passed and no such right vested in the petitioner.

¶16

Ratio / Principle

Petitioner is granted liberty to make a fresh representation during the next annual routine transfers for couple posting, which shall be considered by the appropriate authority prior to passing of the next annual transfer.

¶17

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

WRIT - A No. 712 of 2026 (Manish Mathur, J., January 27, 2026): Petitioner challenged the order dated 06.10.2025 rejecting his representation for transfer from district Amethi to district Shrawasti on compassionate ground for couple posting in terms of Government Order dated 29.03.2018, passed pursuant to the direction in Writ-A No. 11409 of 2025 (disposed 24.09.2025). The rejection was based on the transfer policy now governed by Government Order dated 23.06.2025, petitioner having made no couple-posting application before notification of that order and the transfer session being over. The Court found that the representation had not been considered in light of the provisions of the Government Order applicable to the petitioner, but declined to grant indulgence since almost seven months had passed and no such right vested in the petitioner. Petition disposed of with liberty to make a fresh representation during the next annual routine transfers, to be considered by the appropriate authority prior to the next annual transfer.

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW

¶2

WRIT - A No. - 712 of 2026

¶3

Mohd. Azad Ansari (Pno-170952941)

¶4

.....Petitioner(s)

¶5

Versus

¶6

State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. And 2 Others

¶7

.....Respondent(s) Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Pintoo Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C.

¶8

Court No. - 7

¶9

HON'BLE MANISH MATHUR, J.

¶10

Heard learned counsel for petitioner and learned State Counsel for opposite parties.

¶11

Petition has been filed challenging order dated 06.10.2025 whereby petitioner's representation for transfer from district Amethi to district Shraswasti on compassionate ground for couple posting in terms of Government Order dated 29.03.2018 has been rejected.

¶12

It appears that petitioner had earlier also approached this Court by filing Writ-A No. 11409 of 2025 which was disposed of vide order dated 24.09.2025 directing authorities concerned to consider petitioner's grievance. It is in terms thereof that the impugned order has been passed.

¶13

From a perusal of impugned order, it is evident that petitioner's representation has been rejected on the ground that since the present transfer policy is governed by the Government Order dated 23.06.2025 which provides for couple posting but despite petitioner being aware prior to notification of the aforesaid government order that his wife was posted in district Shrawasti he did not make any application for any such couple posting and since transfer session is already over, same cannot now be considered.

¶14

WRIA No. 712 of 2026

¶15

¶16

In view of facts and circumstances as narrated here-in-above, it is thus evident that petitioner's representation for couple posting in terms of Government Order has not been considered in light of provisions of Government Order applicable upon him. However, since almost seven months have passed, this Court does not find any occasion to grant indulgence at this stage, particularly when there is no such right vested in petitioner.

¶17

Liberty is however granted to petitioner to make a fresh representation during next annual routine transfers for such couple posting which shall be considered by the appropriate authority prior to passing of the next annual transfer.

¶18

With the aforesaid direction(s), petition stands disposed of .

¶19

January 27, 2026

¶20

lakshman

¶21

(Manish Mathur,J.)

¶22

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

Mohd. Azad Ansari (PNO-170952941) v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mohd. Azad Ansari (PNO-170952941) v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. 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

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Bheem Yadav (Inspector , PNO-012470118) vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko. and 3 Others

Raj Kumar @ Koki vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and 5 Others

Mohd. Karim vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Basic Edu. Lko. and 5 Others

Balkrishna Awasthi vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Public Work Deptt. Lko. and 4 Others

Raj Narayan Uttam (Inspector , PNO-060470052) vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and 3 Others

Satya Prakash vs Union of India Thru. Secy. to the Govt., Deptt. of Home Affairs New Delhi and 4 Others