Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

DAYA RAM SWARNKAR versus STATE OF U.P.AND OTHERS

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Daya Ram Swarnkar v. State of U.P.and others - WRIT - A No. 59494 of 2004 [2005] RD-AH 2456 (7 September 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).

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ALLAHABAD

                                                                                                        Court No.38

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.   59494 of 2005

Daya Ram Swarnkar              Versus              State of U.P. & others

Hon'ble Vineet Saran, J

Heard Sri A.R.Dubey, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Sri R.D.Khare, learned counsel for the respondents and have perused the record.

The petitioner is a Junior Engineer working in the respondent-Corporation. By the impugned order dated 1.7.2005 he has been transferred from Bewar, District Mainpuri to Tirwa, District Kannauj. The contention of the petitioner is that as per the policy of the Corporation dated 30.5.2005 the transfer of an employee could have been made only till 30.6.2005 and not thereafter. The other contention of the petitioner is that as per the aforesaid policy no employee should normally be transferred when less than two years remain for his retirement. Lastly, the contention of the petitioner is that he is a heart patient and his transfer should be quashed on humanitarian considerations.

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and considering the facts and circumstances of this case I do not find any merit in this writ petition. The impugned order of transfer has been passed on the directions of the Apex Court dated 24.2.2005 issued in writ petition 79 of 1997 Suresh Chandra Sharma vs. Chairman, U.P.S.E.B. in pursuance of which the Corporation has framed its policy dated 30.5.2005. No doubt, in the said policy it has been stated that as far as possible the transfer should be implemented by 30th June, 2005  but the same cannot be read to mean that no transfer can be made after that date. The transfer order of the petitioner has been passed on 1.7.2005, which is just a day after the last date as suggested in the policy, and thus it cannot be said to be wrong or illegal on this sole round.

The other contention of the petitioner that he could not be transferred within two years of his retirement also does not have force. Admittedly the petitioner is to retire on 31.7.2007. The order having been passed on 1.7.2005, as on that date more than two years were left for his retirement. Accordingly, the said clause in the transfer policy would thus not be attracted in the case of the petitioner.

As regards the last contention that the petitioner is a heart patient and thus his transfer order should not have been passed, the learned counsel for the petitioner has stated that under Clause 15 of the Transfer Policy (applicable to the present year also) such personal difficulties are to be looked into before passing of the transfer order. With regard to such grievance the petitioner has already filed a representation before the Respondent no.2 on 12.8.2005. In such circumstances it is observed that if the petitioner files any such fresh comprehensive representation, the same may be considered, in accordance with law. However, this may not be construed to mean that the order of transfer impugned in this writ petition is being stayed till the disposal of such representation.

No other argument with regard to any illegality or irregularity in the transfer order has been advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner.

Accordingly, in my view, since the impugned transfer order has been passed on the basis of the policy formulated by the respondent-Corporation under the directions of the Apex Court, this writ petition deserves to be dismissed but of course, subject to the observations made hereinabove.

This writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed. No order as to cost.

Dt/- 7.9.2005

dps


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.