Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

RAM NATH YADAV versus STATE OF U.P. & OTHERS

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Ram Nath Yadav v. State Of U.P. & Others - SPECIAL APPEAL No. - 1636 of 2007 [2007] RD-AH 18464 (29 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).

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

Special Appeal No. 1636 of 2007

Ram Nath Yadav vs. State of U.P. and others

****

Hon'ble H.L.Gokhale,CJ

Hon'ble Pankaj Mithal,J

Date: November 29, 2007

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

1. Heard Mr. V.K. Singh, learned Sr. Advocate with Mr. S. Shekhar in support of this appeal. Mr. Y.K. Srivastava appears for respondent no. 1. Mr. Chandra Shekhar Singh appears for respondent nos. 2 to 4.

2. The appellant is a Market Supervisor for a Market Committee. He was earlier working at Bharthana and he was transferred to Kanpur on his representation sometimes in February, 2006. Now he has been transferred to Farrukhabad vide order dated 28.6.2007. He has also been relieved from 9.7.2007. He made a representation. The representation was on the ground that he had undergone a heart surgery. The representation was considered. It is seen that the appellant had undergone a heart surgery way back in the year 1995. Impugned order passed on the representation states that no specific particulars about any treatment in Kanpur were produced before the officer concerned.

3. That apart, it is also recorded that the functioning of the appellant in Kanpur was doubtful. It is for this reason that the representation was rejected. The appellant filed a writ petition. The health problem of the appellant was once again emphasized. It was pointed out that in another order where a person was suffering from cancer and is due to retire in June, 2008, the same learned Single Judge has passed an interim order. The appellant submits he is retiring in November, 2008. Therefore, he should be retained at Kanpur.

4. We have heard learned counsel for the appellant and we have considered the factors leading to his transfer.

5. In our view, the authorities have given cogent reason as to why the representation cannot be accepted. The case of a cancer patient is different. The appellant had undergone an open heart surgery some ten years ago.

6. That apart, there appears to be some doubt about his functioning. In these circumstance, if the authorities have transferred the appellant, there cannot be any error on their part. The learned Single Judge is right in dismissing the petition. The appeal is dismissed.

Date:29.11.2007

RK/ (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.