High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Case Law Search
Naresh Kumar v. State Of U.P. - WRIT - A No. 12726 of 2004  RD-AH 181 (31 March 2004)
Hon'ble Rakesh Tiwari, J.
Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
This writ petition has been filed for issuance of a writ of certiorari quashing the impugned transfer order dated 1.10.2003 (Annexure 5 to the writ petition) passed by respondent no. 1. Besides this prayer, the petitioner has also sought for a writ of mandamus commanding respondent no. 2 to decide his representation dated 24.2.2004 (Annexure 6 to the writ petition).
The petitioner alleges to be a Class III employee at present posted in the office of respondent no. 3 at Bulandshahr where he had been transferred from Mathura vide order dated 19.10.2001 on his representation. Vide order dated 15.6.2003 the petitioner was transferred to Pratapgarh against which he preferred writ petition. It was disposed of on the same date on 14.7.2003 with the direction that the petitioner may make a fresh representation to the Commissioner (respondent no. 1) who shall dispose of the same by a reasoned and speaking and reasoned order taking into account the grievances of the petitioner. It was also directed that till the decision on the representation of the petitioner, the respondents would not force the petitioner to join at Pratapgarh.
In pursuance of the aforesaid order and judgment dated 14.7.2003 the petitioner made a representation to respondent no. 1 who has disposed of the same vide impugned order dated 1.10.2003 staying the transfer of the petitioner to Pratapgarh till 31.3.2004 and he has been directed to join there on 1.4.2004 positively. Against this order dated 1.10.2003 the petitioner has further made a representation dated 24.2.2004 (Annexure 6 to the writ petition) to respondent no. 2 alleging that in passing the impugned order of transfer the guide-lines issued by the State Government on 8.4.1999 have not been followed. This representation is alleged to be still pending decision.
The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the grievance of the petitioner about the illness of his mother has not been considered by respondent no. 1 while disposing of his representation dated 18.7.2003 moved by him in pursuance of the order of this Court dated 14.7.2003.
I have gone through the impugned order dated 1.10.2003. In the impugned order respondent no. 1 has clearly made reference about the grievance of the petitioner and considered the same sympathetically and on this ground had stayed the transfer of the petitioner till 31.3.2004. In the pending representation the petitioner has repeated the same grievance.
Transfer is an incidence of service, which should not normally be interfered with until and unless the same is mala fide, illegal or arbitrary. I see no illegality or infirmity in the impugned order warranting interference under Article 226 of the Constitution.
For the reasons stated above, this petition is dismissed. No order as to costs.
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.