Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

DHARAM PRAKASH SHARMA versus STATE OF U.P. AND OTHERS

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Dharam Prakash Sharma v. State Of U.P. And Others - WRIT - A No. 67804 of 2006 [2006] RD-AH 21182 (15 December 2006)

 

This is an UNCERTIFIED copy for information/reference. For authentic copy please refer to certified copy only. In case of any mistake, please bring it to the notice of Joint Registrar(Copying).

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ALLAHABAD

Court No. 38

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 67804 of 2006

Dharm Prakash Sharma

  Vs.

State of U.P.  and others

Hon'ble V.K. Shukla, J.

Petitioner was initially appointed as Accounts Clerk, and subsequently, he was promoted as U.D.A. in the year 2002. Petitioner has contended that he was being maltreated  by the Officiating Commanding Officer and frivolous case was imposed against him. It has also been contended that petitioner was unnecessarily being harassed, and this Court on 04.09.2006 had given direction for deciding the appeal of the petitioner, which he had preferred against the attachment order. Petitioner has contended that the said matter is still pending and in between release order has been passed releasing the petitioner from Mathura to Gonda.

Sri A.K. Srivastava, learned Counsel for the petitioner contended with vehemence that entire action against the petitioner is motivated one and as such movement order is bad in the eyes of law, and the same is liable to be set aside.

Learned Standing Counsel, on the other hand, contended that in administrative exigency, petitioner has been transferred and the movement order has been passed, as such the same warrants no interference by this Court, and the writ petition is liable to be dismissed.

After respective arguments have been advanced, the factual position which emerges is to the effect that petitioner has been transferred in administrative exigency from Hathras to Gonda.  In the case of Mrs. Shilpi Bose v. State of Bihar 1995 (71) F.L.R. 1011, Hon'ble Apex Court has held that a government servant holding transferable post has no vested right  to remain posted at one place or the other, he is liable to be transferred from one place to other. Transfer order issued by the competent authority do not violate any legal right. Even if transfer order is passed in violation of executive instructions  or orders, the Courts ordinarily should not interfere with the order instead the affected party  should approach the higher authorities in the Department.

In the case of State of U.P. vs. Goverdhan Lal; 2004 (101) FLR 586 (SC) Hon'ble Apex Court has held that unless the order of transfer is shown to be an outcome of a mala fide exercise of power or violative of any statutory provision (Act or Rule)  or passed by an authority not competent to do so, an order of transfer cannot be lightly interfered with as a matter of course or routine for any or every type of grievance sought to be made. Even administrative guidelines for regulating transfer or containing transfer policies at the best may afford an opportunity to the officer or servant concerned to approach their higher authorities  for redress but cannot have the consequence of depriving or denying the competent authority to transfer a particular officer/servant to any place in public interest and is found necessitated by exigencies of service as long as the official status is not affected adversely and there is no infraction of any career prospects such as seniority, scale of pay and secured emoluments.

Hon'ble Apex court in the case of Union of India vs. Janardan Debanath, 2004 (4) SCC 245 has taken the view that no government servant has any legal right to be posted  for ever at one particular place, and such transfer order shall not be interfered with unless the power of transfer has been exercised mala fide or statutory Rules have been violated. Apart from this when there is prima satisfaction on contemporary reports being received about the conduct of incumbent, instead of taking recourse to regular disciplinary proceeding, incumbent can be transferred.

On the touchstone of the judgments cited above, claim of petitioner is adjudged. The order of transfer has been passed by competent authority in administrative exigency, and there is no mala fides, as no Officer has been impleaded in person, and there is no violation of any statutory Rules, as such no interference is warranted by this Court.  

Consequently, writ petition lacks substance, and the same is dismissed.  

15.12.2006

SRY


Copyright

Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites

Advertisement

dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Tip:
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.