Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

ARJUN KUMAR SINHA versus STATE OF UP THRU' SECY NAGAR VIKASH AND OTHERS

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Arjun Kumar Sinha v. State Of Up Thru' Secy Nagar Vikash And Others - WRIT - A No. 54862 of 2005 [2006] RD-AH 6919 (30 March 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. SHISHIR KUMAR, J.

By means of the present writ petition the petitioner has approached this Court for issuing a writ of certiorari quashing the order dated 5.5.2005, Annexure-5 to the writ petition passed by respondent no.3 and the order dated 2.6.2005, Annexure-10 to the writ petition passed by respondent no.3.

The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner was appointed on the post of Assistant Accountant in Nagar Palika, Rampur and is working. It is submitted that it is a single cadre post of technically qualified Assistant Accountant in Nagar Palika. On 5.5.2005 an order was passed by respondent no.3 by which the petitioner has been transferred in the same office in another department as officer in charge of tax realization. The contention of the petitioner is that there is one post of Assistant Accountant in the pay scale of Rs.4000-6000 and only one single post has been sanctioned in the Nagar Palika, Rampur, therefore, the petitioner cannot be transferred to a place where he has been transferred. The petitioner requested respondent no.3 not to transfer the petitioner to another post as it clearly amounts to reversion of the petitioner The petitioner submitted a representation dated 6.5.2005 to the Commissioner for his grievances that as the petitioner is being transferred to a lower scale and only one cadre post is sanctioned and the petitioner is the only eligible person to be posted on the said post, therefore, the order of transfer is bad. The petitioner has not joined the said post and the order of suspension has been passed by the authority suspending the petitioner. It has been submitted on behalf of the petitioner that up till date, no charge sheet has been given to the petitioner.

On the other hand counsel for the respondent has field a counter affidavit and has said that it is not a case of reversion and as the petitioner has not complied with the order of transfer, therefore, the petitioner has been suspended and the order of suspension has been published in the newspaper. It has further been submitted that up till date, the petitioner has not complied with the order of transfer.

I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and Mohd. Ashif Khan counsel for the respondent no.4. The controversy involved in the present writ petition is factual to this effect whether the order of transfer of the petitioner is reversion as stated by the petitioner. The said controversy can only be decided by the competent authority. As regards the order of suspension is concerned, admittedly the petitioner has not complied with the order of transfer, therefore, there was no option for respondent no.3 to pass the order of suspension.

As it is clear from the record that the petitioner has already filed a representation to the Commissioner, Moradabad Division, Moradabad regarding his grievances and that is still pending, the present writ petition is being disposed of with a direction that if the petitioner submits a supplementary representation annexing copy of the writ petition regarding his grievances before respondent no.6 relating to the grievance of the transfer as well as the validity of the order of suspension, respondent no.6 is directed to pass an appropriate detailed and reasoned order according to law preferably within two months from the date of production of a certified copy of this order before him.

With these observations the writ petition is disposed of.

30.3.2006

V.Sri/-

W.P.No.54862 of 2005


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.