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


Dinesh Chand Gupta v. State Of U.P. & Others - WRIT - A No. - 47187 of 2007 [2007] RD-AH 18629 (5 December 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).


Court No.19.

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.47187 of 2007.

Dinesh Chand Gupta


State of U.P. and others


Hon. Pankaj Mithal, J.

Heard Sri A.K.Singh for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel.

The petitioner is aggrieved by his transfer from Mathura to Rampur. The said transfer order has been passed on 12.9.2007 basically to accommodate one Mukesh Kumar whose transfer order dated 7.7.2005 from Mathura to Rampur has been cancelled. It appears that the said Mukesh Kumar was posted at Mathura for the last over ten years and, therefore, in pursuance of the general direction issued by this Court to transfer all the employees, who are at same place for over 10 years, Mukesh Kumar was transferred from Mathura to Rampur on 7.7.2005. The petitioner was posted in his place at Mathura in 2005.

It has been contended that despite his transfer in July, 2005 the said Mukesh Kumar never joined at Rampur, where he was transferred and now he has manipulated to get his transfer order cancelled and, therefore, the petitioner has been transferred to Rampur, in his place.

Apparently, no illegality in the order transferring the petitioner from Mathura to Rampur has been pointed out. The said transfer order has not been passed in violation of any rule of law. The submission of the petitioner that he has been transferred before expiry of three years is not acceptable as it is not an absolute rule that an employee shall be transferred before three years. However, there is some substance in the allegations of the petitioner that his transfer has been made only in order to accommodate Mukesh Kumar, who continues to be posted at Mathura for the last over 10 years and even after his transfer from Mathura to Rampur in July 2005 he has not worked for a single day at his transferred place.

In the above facts and circumstances, it is desirable that the Joint Director (Netra Upchar), U.P. Lucknow should consider the matter afresh on the representation of the petitioner. The petitioner is permitted to make a representation raising all his grievances and the contention with regard to Mukesh Kumar within a period of two weeks from today. In case such a representation is made to respondent no.3 he shall consider and decide the same, in accordance with law, if necessary after hearing aforesaid Mukesh Kumar also, and pass appropriate orders as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of the representation along with a certified copy of this order.

The writ petition is disposed of finally.




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.