Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details


High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation


Satya Prakash Saxena v. State Of U.P. And Others - WRIT - A No. - 54034 of 2007 [2007] RD-AH 17538 (6 November 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).


Writ petition no.54034/2007

(Satya Prakash Saxena Vs. State of U.P. & others)

Hon'ble Sudhir Agarwal, J.

Heard Sri Rajesh Pathak for the petitioner and Sri J.P. Pandey for respondents no.2 and 3. Learned Standing counsel has appeared on behalf of respondent no.1.

Aggreived by the transfer order dated 23.7.2007 passed by the Managing Director, Paschimanchal Vidyut Vitaran Nigam Ltd, Meerut, transferring the petitioner from Electricity Urban Distribution Division Moradabad to Distribution Circle, Baghpat, this writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a writ of certiorari for quashing the transfer order. It is submitted that he has about 2?? years of service to retire and will attain the age of superannuation in 2010. He further contended that his children are studying at Moradabad and his wife is ill. It is further contended that some other persons working since long have not been disturbed while the petitioner has been discriminated.

Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner, however, I do not find any force in any of the aforesaid submissions. 2 ?? years cannot be said to be a short period during which an employee cannot be transferred particularly when he holds a transferable post. The order of transfer cannot be said to be illegal only on the ground that some other persons working since long time have been allowed to stay and the petitioner has been transferred. Which particular employee should be posted where is the absolute discretion and within the domain of administrative authorities and it is not for the Court to interfere unless it is illegal being contrary to Rules or is without jurisdiction. These aspects have been considered by a Division Bench of this Court in the case of Uma Shanker Rai Vs. State of U.P. & others (Writ Petition No. 243(SB) of 2007, Lucknow Bench) decided on 31.7.2007 and in view of the law laid down therein, I do not find any merit in this writ petition. However, so far as personal grievance of the petitioner is concerned, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he has already made a representation to the competent authority and, therefore, it is made clear that this order shall not preclude competent authority to look into the said representation and pass appropriate order in accordance with law.

The writ petition is dismissed with the aforesaid observations.

Dated: 06.11.2007



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


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 |

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