Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

JANAK SINGH versus STATE OF U.P. & OTHERS

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Janak Singh v. State Of U.P. & Others - SPECIAL APPEAL No. - 1381 of 2007 [2007] RD-AH 16742 (23 October 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 AT ALLAHABAD

CJ's Court

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

Special Appeal No. 1381 of 2007

Jank Singh, Son of Sri Late Tufani Singh, Resident of Village

Laharpur, P.O. Lharpur, District Azamgarh.

-------- Appellant/Petitioner

Vs.

1. State of U.P. through Secretary (Agriculture) U.P. at Lucknow.

2. Additional Director of Agriculture (Administrative) U.P. at Lucknow.

3. District Agriculture Protection Officer, District Azamgarh

4. Deputy Director of Agriculture Head Office U.P. at Lucknow.

-------- Respondents

Present : R.C. Dwivedi, for the Appellant,

Standing Counsel, for the State-Respondents.

Coram: Hon'ble H.L. Gokhale, CJ.

Hon'ble Pankaj Mithal, J.

Date: 23.10.2007

Oral Judgement (Per: H.L. Gokhale, CJ.)

1. Heard Sri R.C. Dwivedi, learned counsel for the appellant in support of the appeal and the learned Standing counsel for State of U.P.

2. The appellant is a class four employee who has been transferred from District Azamgarh to District Allahabad.

3. Earlier on his request the petitioner was transferred to Azamgarh considering his difficulty. He challenged his transfer to Allahabad order by preferring a writ petition which has been dismissed by the learned Single Judge. Hence, this appeal is filed.

4. We have heard learned counsel for both the parties.

5. Way back in the case of B. Vardha Rao Vs. State of Karnataka in AIR 1986 SC 1955 the Apex court has observed that as far as the Class III and Class IV employees are concerned, to the extent possible they should be treated differently from class I to class II employees in the matter of transfer. The appellant is a lowly paid employee and prima-facie there is no reason as to why he should be transferred outside the district as has been done.

6. The appeal is allowed. The impugned order is set aside. The transfer order also stands quashed. The appellant will be retained in district Azamgarh.

SKS (1381-07)

23.10.2007

(Chief Justice)

(Pankaj Mithal, J.)


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.