Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

MANTOORI LAL versus STATE OF U.P. THRU. PRIN. SECY. (UDYAN) & OTHERS

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Mantoori Lal v. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. (Udyan) & Others - WRIT - A No. 12908 of 2004 [2004] RD-AH 266 (24 May 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

Hon'ble Rakesh Tiwari, J.

Heard Sri T.P.Singh, Senior Advocate, for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel.  

The petitioner has, by means of this writ petition, challenged his transfer from Bulandshahr to Moradabad. The petitioner alleges to be working as a ''Mali' (Gardner), a Class IV post, under respondent no. 3 at Bulandshahr since 6.8.1988. Under the impugned order dated 2.1.2004 he has been transferred to Moradabad from Bulandshahr.

By order dated 31.3.2004 this Court had granted time to file counter and rejoinder affidavits and the petition was directed to be listed on 17th May 2004. The operation of the impugned orders dated 2.6.2003 and 7.9.2003 as well as order dated 2.1.2004 was stayed till 15th May 2004. Accordingly counter and rejoinder affidavits have been exchanged between the parties. In Para 9 of the counter affidavit it has been stated that on receipt of a complaint against the petitioner an enquiry was conducted against him. The enquiry against the petitioner has now been concluded and the Enquiry Officer has submitted his enquiry report that the complaint was false.  

Sri T.P.Singh, Senior Advocate, appearing on behalf of the petitioner, contends that the petitioner being a Class IV employee cannot be transferred from one Mandal to another Mandal, i.e., Bulandshahr (Meerut Mandal) to Moradabad (Moradabad Mandal). He placed reliance upon the transfer policy framed by the State Government in this regard. The learned Standing Counsel states that normally a Class IV employee is not transferred from one Mandal to another Mandan except on administrative exigency as has been exercised in the instant case due to the complaint made against the petitioner.

It is apparent from the record that the complaint against the petitioner has been found to be false. The petitioner is a poor Class IV employee. If it is not possible for the respondents to keep him at Bulandshahr where he is at present posted, he may be transferred within the district. The Standing Counsel has no objection to this prayer of the petitioner.  

For the reasons stated above this petition is disposed of directing the respondents to pass a fresh order transferring the petitioner within the district.

Dated: 24-5-2004

Rpk/


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.