Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

JITENDRA KUMAR versus INFORMATION DIRECTOR INFORMATION & PUBLIC RELATION UP & ORS.

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Jitendra Kumar v. Information Director Information & Public Relation Up & Ors. - WRIT - A No. 4168 of 2002 [2004] RD-AH 1013 (4 October 2004)

 

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

                                                                                                                             Reserved

                 Civil Misc.Writ Petition No. 4168 of 2002

Jintendra Kumar           Versus              The Information Director, Information

                                                               and Public Relation Department,U.P.

                                                               Lucknow and others.

Hon'ble Rakesh Tiwari,J.

Heard counsel for the parties and perused the record.

The petitioner was appointed as Announcer for the District Information Office,Aligarh vide order dated 29.3.1982 issued by the Information Director, Information and Public Relation Department, U.P. respondent no.1. By order dated 23.12.2001 the services of the petitioner were attached to the head office for Gramin Prasaran Sewa, Akashwani, Lucknow. Respondent no.3, Prabhari District Information Officer, Aligarh communicated the aforesaid order of attachment directing him to hand over charge of the post of Announcer by 14.1.2002.

Aggrieved by the aforesaid order dated 23.12.2001 the petitioner has come up in this writ petition challenging the validity and correctness of the impugned order.

The counsel for the petitioner has assailed the impugned order branding it as absolutely wrong and illegal. He submits that the services of the petitioner are not transferable as the post of Announcer was created only for Aligarh and there is no other post of Announcer any where in the State of U.P. He further submits that the petitioner has been working as Announcer since 1982 for the District Information Office, Aligarh and since there is neither any complaint against the petitioner nor any disciplinary proceeding is pending or is contemplated against the petitioner, hence attaching of the petitioner to the Head Office Lucknow without any rhym or reason or disciplinary proceeding is without jurisdiction. He also submits that Gramin Prasaran Sewa Akashwani, Lucknow does not come within the purview and control of ''Information and Public Relation Department, Lucknow' as it is separate and independent department, as such the petitioner can not be posted there. Last but not  the least the post of Announcer still exists in the office of District Information Office, Aligarh and has not been abolished; that there is work  and it has not been disclosed the post on which the petitioner has been posted. It is submitted that the terms and conditions of services of the petitioner do not contain any stipulation that the services of the petitioner are transferable. The order of appointment of the petitioner dated 29th March, 1982 is as under:

^^dk;kZy; vkns'k

lwpuk ,oa tulEidZ foHkkx ds v/khu ekbdzksQksu dsUnzksa dh LFkkiuk ifj;kstuk ds vUrxZr ftyk lwpuk dk;kZy;] vyhx<+ ds fy;s cqfdax bukmUlj ds in osrueku :0 250&7&285&n- jks-&9&375&n&jks&10&425 esa Jh ftrsUnz dqekj] 15@66 eqgYyk cjkbZ] vyhx<+ dh fu;qfDr fuEu 'krksZ ij dh tkrh gS%&

¼2½ ;g fu;qfDr iw.kZr% vLFkk;h gS vkSj fdlh Hkh le; fcuk uksfVl lekIr dh tk ldrh gSA

¼3½ dk;ZHkkj xzg.k djrs le; lEcfU/kr ftyk lwpuk vf/kdkjh dks fuEu izek.k i= izLrqr djus gksaxs%&

d- vkns'k i= ds lkFk layXu rhu izfr;ksa esa izk:i  Hkjdj

[k- fdUgha nks jktif=r vf/kdkfj;ksa ds nks pfj= ,oa vkpj.k izek.k i=

x- eq[; fpfdRlk vf/kdkjh ls LokLF; ijh{kk djkdj izek.k i=

¼4½ fu;ekuqlkj }kjk le;≤ ij Lohdkj vU; HkRrs Hkh vuqeU; gksxsa vkSj izFke ckj dk;ZHkkj xzg.k djus ds fy;s dksbZ ;k+k ugha u gksxkA

¼5½ ;fn mUgsa mfYyf[kr 'krsZ ekU; gks rks og izek.k i=ksa lfgr rSukrh ds ftys dks ftyk lwpuk vf/kdkjh dks fjiksVZ djds ,d lIrkg ds vUnj viuk dk;ZHkkj xzg.k dj ysaA ;fn fu/kkZfjr vof/k esa dk;ZHkkj xzg.k u fd;k x;k rks ;g le>k tk;sxk fd bUgsa ;g fu;qfDr Lohdkj ugha gs vkSj mDr fu;qfDr vkns'k fujLr dj fn;k tk;sxkA

                                                    Bkdqj izlkj flag

                                                     lwpuk funs'kd**

           

Lastly it is submitted that the two minor children of the petitioner are studying at Aligarh, as such the transfer of the petitioner in mid academic session will adversely affect their educational career.

On the basis of averments made in the counter affidavit the counsel for the respondents submits that the District Aligarh is very sensitive district and in order to maintain law, order and peace in the year 1979 microphone centre  was established by the Government Order dated 5th October, 1979 for the purpose of announcement in the general public. Consequently, a post of Announcer and a post of Sound Mechanic were created in the pay scale of Rs. 250-425 and Rs. 230-385 respectively. He submits that the Microphone centre has now been transferred to the police department for about 10 years but the post of Announcer remained with the Information and  Public Relation Department. He has drawn attention of the Court in this regard towards Annexure-CA-1.  He further submits that after transfer of the Microphone centre to the police department there was no work available to the petitioner and his services were not being utilized by the department, though salary was being paid to him, a policy  decision was taken that the petitioner be posted in Rural Announcement Services ( Gramin Prasar Sewa) Akashwani,Lucknow so that the department may be  able to utilize the  services of the petitioner instead of abolishing the post. He further submits that apart from above the petitioner had not been performing the work allotted to him and an adverse entry was also awarded to him. The District Magistrate had informed that the petitioner was not doing work and requested to transfer the petitioner on administrative ground.

From the record it is apparent that the post of Announcer is not at all required for District Aligarh and the petitioner has been adjusted/attached  in Gramin Prasaran Sewa, Akashwani, Lucknow; that Gramin Prasaran Sewa is a unit of Akashwani  which comes under the Information Department, hence the petitioner was posted at Lucknow.

The order dated 23rd December, 2001 by which the petitioner was attached to the office of Gramin Prasaran Sewa Akashwani, Luckow is as under:

^^mRrj izns'k ljdkj

lwpuk ,oa tu lEidZ foHkkx

{ks=  izpkj izHkkx

la[;k% 2555/ lw0 ,oa t0la0 fo0 ¼{ks iz-½ & 467@78

y[ku�?     fnukad 23 fnlEcj] 2001

dk;kZy; vkns'k

     lwpuk ,oa tu lEidZ foHkkx] m0 iz0 ds v/khu ftyk lwpuk dk;kZy; vyhx< ds mn~?kks�?d in ij rSukr Jh ftrsUnz dqekj dks eq[;ky; ls lEc+ð djrs gq, xzkeh.k izlkj.k lsok vkdk'kok.kh y[ku�? esa rSukr fd;k tkrk gSA

;g vkns'k rRdkfyd izHkko ls ykxw gksaxsA  Jh ftrsUnz dqekj fu;ekuqlkj lk/kkj.k ;k+=k HkRrk ikus ds vf/kdkjh gksxsa budk osru �?h�?Zd & 2220 & lwpuk rFkk izpkj & vk;kstusRrj &106&{ks+= izpkj &03&vf/k"Bku* ls vkgfjr fd;k tk;sxk A

                                                              g0 vifBr

                                                      ¼;w0 ds0 ,l0 PkSkgku½

                                                             lwpuk funs'kd

la[;k 2555 ¼1½ @ lw-,oa t-la-fo- ¼{ks-iz-½ & 467 @ 78 rn~fnukafdrA

izfrfyfi fuEukafdr dks lwpukFkZ ,oa vko';d dk;Zokgh gsrq izsf�?r%&

1- ftykf/kdkjh] vyhx<+

2- dks"kkf/dkjh] vyhx<+

3- ftyk lwpuk dk;kZy;] vyhx<+

4- i;Zos{kd] xzkeh.k izlkj.k lsok vkdk'kok.kh] y[ku�?

5- ys[kk] izHkkx] lwpuk ,oa tulEidZ foHkkx] m0iz0 y[ku�?

6- dks"kkf/kdkjh] tokgj Hkou] y[ku�? dks foHkkxh; ys[kk izHkkx ds ek/;e lsA

7- lacaf/kr deZpkjh dks

8- lacaf/kr deZpkjh dh futh i=koyh gsrqA

                                            g0 vifBr

                                         ¼ iznhi dqekj xqIr½

                                            mi funs'kd**

The counsel for the petitioner has laid great stress on the fact that in fact the petitioner has been transferred to Gramin Prasaran Sewa Akashwani Lucknow and he does not know on which post he has been transferred and to whom to report for duties.  The word used in the order dated 23rd December 2001 ''lEc+)' (attachment) and ''rSukr' (posting).  The counsel for the petitioner has strenuously argued that the petitioner has been transferred ( LFkkukUrfjr )  and appointed ( rSukr ) at Gramin Prasaran Sewa Akshwani Lucknow.  These are the words of common parlance.It would be proper to refer to the meaning of these words. The word ''lEc+)' means attachment and the word ''rSukr' means posting. The word ''LFkkukUrfjr' means transferred and the word appointment means ''fu;qfDr'. According to Chambers English Dictionary their dictionary meaning is as under:

                Appointment  ¼fu;qfDr ) means:-  an office to which one is or may be

                                                                    nominated.

                Attachment     (lEc++))  means:-    act or means of fastening; a bond of

                                                                    fidelity or affection; seizure of goods or

                                                                     person by virtue of a legal process: a

                                                                     piece etc. that is to be attached.

                 Posting         (rSukr) means:-        an office, employment.

                 Transferred   (LFkkukUrfjr) means:-  the act of transferring; conveyance

                                                                       from one person, place etc.to

                                                                       another; that which is transferred

                                                                        or is to be transferred.

Thus, it is seen that the word ''lEc+)' is not a transfer. The word ''attachment' implies that the incumbent of the post has lien on the post whereas transfer means that the incumbent of the post has no lien on the post at a particular place. Appointment has also different connotation than the posting, hence transfer/posting is not an appointment as is urged by the counsel for the petitioner.

Apart from above it is evident from the record that there is no work for the petititioner for the last 10 years as the Information Centre has been transferred to the police department. The petitioner is drawing salary for the last about 10 years without work. If he has been attached to the Gramin Prasaran Sewa Akashwani Lucknow to utilize his services, no Government servant should have any objection. If he does not give service  and only wants to draw salary without work, the Government has every right to dispense with the services of such a person. In the instant case, the Government instead of abolishing the post and terminating his services has attahced him in Gramin Prasaran Sewa Akashwani, Lucknow in order to utilize his services so that the petitioner may not suffer any hardship. The Government could terminate his services as he was only temporary Government servant. In so far as the question of mid academic session is concerned,the writ petition was filed in 2002. The children of the petitioner are admittedly very small, as such I do not think that  their studies will be adversely affected if the petitioner is posted at Gramin Prasaran Sewa Akashwani, Lucknow. On the contrary it is submitted that there are better educational Institutions  at Lucknow. According to the report of the District Magistrate  there is no work for the petitioner for last 10 years, therefore, the attachment of the petitioner to the Gramin Sewa Prasaran Akashwani, Lucknow can not be said to be arbitrary or  baseless.

The order dated 23.12.2001 clearly shows that the petitioner has to report to the Supervisor, Gramin Prasaran Sewa, Akashwani, Lucknow to whom a copy of the letter has been endorsed. The services of the petitioner have been attached to Lucknow instead of terminating his services as there is no work for the petitioner for last 10 years. This appears to be a human approach taken by the department, yet the petitioner does not want to join and be useful to his services, instead has come up in this petition on untenable grounds.

No rejoinder affidavit has been filed controverting the facts in the counter affidavit as such the averments in the counter affidavit have to be taken as correct that there is no work for the petitioner of Announcer at Aligarh. Even assuming that attachment of the petitioner to the Gramin Sewa Prasaran Akashwani,Lucknow has some element of transfer, in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, I am not inclined to interfere with the impugned order. It is not a fit case for exercise of powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

For the reasons stated above, the writ petition is dismissed.

Dated

CPP/-


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.