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


Mohd. Azim Khan v. Principal Secy. P.W.D. And Others - WRIT - A No. 50244 of 2005 [2005] RD-AH 1708 (20 July 2005)


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).


Civil Misc. W.P. No. 50244 of 2005

Hon'ble Sushil Harkauli J.

Hon'ble G.P. Srivastva, J.

Out of the total 18 years that the petitioner has served with the respondents, he has spent 15 years in Allahabad and of the remaining 3 years, he has spent one year in Farrukhabad and 2 years in Pratapgarh. Now the petitioner says that the remaining 2 years of his service till his superannuation, he must remain in Allahabad because of such an observation in the transfer policy.

The petitioner relies upon a Division Bench decision of this Court (Lucknow Bench) in Special Appeal No. 374 of 2005 in which the said observation of the transfer policy has been made a basis for granting relief.

That decision did not deal with a person who had spent such a large part of his service tenure posted at one particular station. The Supreme Court has also laid down that transfer policies are not meant to clothe the employees with a right to resist or challenge their transfer orders.

Having regard to the above facts and circumstances, we are not inclined to interfere with the transfer order merely on the ground that the petitioner has 2 years to retire. The petitioner may therefore join his new posting and thereafter make a representation setting out his personal problems and the fact that he is to retire shortly. If such a representation is made to the authority empowered to transfer, the said respondent will examine the representation and, if possible, post the petitioner back to Allahabad one year prior to his retirement unless there is good reason to refuse the said request.

This writ petition is disposed of as above.

Dated : July 20, 2005



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.