Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

VINOD KUMAR TOMAR versus STATE OF U.P. AND OTHERS

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Vinod Kumar Tomar v. State Of U.P. And Others - WRIT - A No. 8720 of 2006 [2006] RD-AH 3478 (14 February 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

HON. ARUN TANDON, J.

Prior to the enforcement of the U.P. Reorganisation Act of 2000 the petitioner has employed in the Social Welfare Department of the State of U.P.

On creation of the State of Uttranchal the petitioner was transferred to the State of Uttranchal under orders dated 27.11.2000 and dated 3.4.2001.  These orders were never challenged by the petitioner. However vide order dated 30.7.2004 passed by the Director Social Welfare Department, Uttranchal, the petitioner was repatriated to the State of U.P. pending final allocation by the Government of India. The petitioner along with 4 others submitted their joining report before the Director, Social Welfare U.P., Lucknow. The Director before accepting the joining report referred the matter for opinion of the State Government.  The State of U.P. ultimately vide letter dated 2.1.2006 informed that the repatriation of the petitioner under orders of the Director Samaj Kalyan, Uttranchal, dated 20.4.2004 was not justified and further that the petitioner and other four employees have already been allocated  to the State of Uttranchal under order of the Government of India dated 30.9.2001.  Therefore, it has been provided that the petitioner and 4 others be  sent back to the State of Uttranchal for necessary joining.

Counsel for the petitioner has not been able to dispute the correctness of the finding that the petitioner along with other four employees had been allocated to the State of Uttranchal under the order dated 11.9.2001 nor the said order is under challenge in the present writ petition.

In such circumstances the order passed by the Director dated 19.1.2006 which is only inconformity with the allocation made by the Government of India vide order dated 11.9.2001 does not call for any interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

Writ petition is accordingly dismissed.

Dated: 14.2.2006

V.R./8720/06


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.