Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

MOHD. AKARAM versus STATE OF U.P. AND OTHERS

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Mohd. Akaram v. State Of U.P. And Others - WRIT - A No. 34695 of 2007 [2007] RD-AH 13205 (31 July 2007)

 

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'ble V.K. Shukla,J.

Petitioner is Bandi Rakshak( cUnh j{kd) and has been transferred from District Jail Muzaffar Nagar to Sub-Jail Devband District Saharanpur.

This fact has not been disputed by the petitioner at the point of time when the matter has been taken up that he has stayed at District Jail Muszaffar Nagar for more than six years. Petitioner holds transferable post, the authority who has passed order of transfer has competence to pass order of transfer. Petitioner has miserably failed to point out, violation of any statutory Rules and Regulations.

At last petitioner has contended that under the relevant government policy in case both husband and wife are in government service then they are entitled to be place at one place.

Government policy has been perused. Government policy mentions that as far as possible attempt shall be made that both the incumbent shall be placed at one place. In Government policy 2007-08 mandatory provision has been incorporated that if once incumbent has stayed for more than six years on ome district then he/she has to be transferred. Said transfer policy has been framed pursuant to judgment of this Court  in the case of Akash  Sharma Vs State of U.P. and others reported in 2007 (3) ESC 1730 wherein this Court, has taken note that overstay at particular place, gives opportunity to incumbent to develop local links and vested interest as such in public interest and administrative exigency, such policy be there.

In these circumstances transfer order in the present does not suffer from any infirmity.  More over, transfer policy does not create any right and element of discretion is involved in posting even in matter of husband and wife latitude has been given by mentioning as far as possible. Division Bench  judgment of this Court in the case of Rajendra Prasad Vs. Union of India and others reported in 2005 (2) ESC 1224 has considered the statutory character of government policy and the meaning of 'as far as possible" and same clearly mentions that so long it remains practicable and feasible and it is directory instead of mandatory.

As petitioner has been transferred to adjoining district, as per transfer policy no interference is required.

Consequently  present writ petition is dismissed. Dismissal of present writ petition will not prevent the wife of petitioner to represent for her transfer also at the place where petitioner has been transferred.

31th July, 2007

Dhruv(34695)


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.