Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

RAJESH KUMAR versus STATE OF U.P. & OTHERS

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Rajesh Kumar v. State Of U.P. & Others - WRIT - A No. 32598 of 2006 [2006] RD-AH 10665 (19 June 2006)

 

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. 7

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 32598 Of 2006

Rajesh Kumar

Versus

State of U.P. & Others

 ~~~~

                                   

                                                   

Hon'ble Rakesh Tiwari, J.

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

The Standing Counsel at the out-set raised a preliminary objection that the controversy involved in this writ petition is covered by the decision of this Court rendered in the General Manager N.E. Railway, Gorakhpur & Others Vs J.R.Khatnani & Others, 1975 (31) F.L.R. 246, wherein it is held that once an employee is transferred and posted to a particular place acceptance of the transfer order by the employee is immaterial and even though he may join his duties or physically may not go to the new place of posting he will deemed to be posted there in the eyes of law and his place of posting cannot be deemed to have changed merely because he disobeys the transfer order.

He states that in the instant case the petitioner has been transferred from the State of Uttar Pradesh to the State of Uttaranchal as he has been shown in the list of employees transferred to the State of Uttaranchal. In view of the aforesaid decision he will be deemed to have been transferred to the State of Uttaranchal, as such the writ petition would be maintainable before Uttaranchal High Court.

The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner has neither been relieved nor served with any such order of transfer. It is further contended that some persons from the aforesaid list of employees have approached this Court and have been granted interim order.

List this case for 10.7.2006 for addressing the appropriate Court on the question of jurisdiction.

Status quo as on date shall be maintained till 10.7.2006.

While listing the case next the name of Sri Satish Mandhyan shall also be shown as the counsel for respondent-Union of India.

Dated: 19.6.2006

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.