Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

HARI KANT versus STATE OF U.P. AND OTHERS

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Hari Kant v. State Of U.P. And Others - WRIT - A No. 49977 of 2006 [2006] RD-AH 16123 (15 September 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. 38

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 49977 of 2006

Hari Kant

Versus

State of U.P. and others

Hon'ble V.K. Shukla,J.

Petitioner was working as Clerk in the Education Department. Petitioner has contended that Government Order dated 30.05.2006 was issued to transfer all Class III employees who were discharging their duties on one particular table for more than five years. Petitioner has contended that pursuant thereto petitioner and 10 other employees were transferred from their respective table to other table and joined their duties. Petitioner has contended that thereafter contrary to the provisions as contained under Government Order, order dated 10.08.2006 has been passed by means of the same Tulsi Ram has been transferred in place of the petitioner without assigning any reason. At this juncture present writ petition has been filed.

Counter affidavit has been filed and therein it has been contended that petitioner was never transferred from one Anubhag (vuqHkkx) to another Anubhag (vuqHkkx). It has also been contended that respondent no. 3  is disabled person and has always been present on his table due to which there has been no hurdle or problem in performing the work relating to local Daak(Mkd), as such in the interest of the work in the Department respondent no. 3 has been again posted on the previous place under special circumstances and result of which petitioner has been sent back to his previous place of posting. It has further been contended that Table has been changed by one table to another in the same Section and Anubhag (vuqHkkx) has not at all been changed. Qua representation dated 11.08.2006 it has been contended that request is for transfer for change of present Anubhag (vuqHkkx). It has also been contended that petitioner has been working in Central Receipt Department where the work of distribution of entire receipts received from various Section [Anubhag (vuqHkkx) of the Directorate] is done. In this background it has been contended that writ petition is liable to be dismissed.

After pleading mentioned above have been exchanged, present writ petition has been taken up for being finally decided with the consent of the parties.

Learned counsel for the petitioner contended with vehemence that in the present case pursuant to Government order dated 30.05.2006 necessary arrangements were made and thereafter for no rhyme for reason, against the spirit of Government order dated 30.05.2006 respondent no. 3 has been sought to be adjusted as such entire action is arbitrary and unjustifiable.

Learned Standing counsel on the other hand contended that cent percent internal arrangements have been made and as such no interference be made by this Court.

After respective arguments have been advanced Government Order dated 30.05.2006 has been seen. Said Government Order reflects that as policy decision taken by the State Government qua the Directorate of Basic Education and subordinate office that where an incumbent has been performing and discharging duties at one particular counter for the more than five years then in all eventuality their counter be changed. Pursuant to this Government Order dated 30.05.2006 authority concerned on 20.06.2006 changed the counter. Qua Tulsi Ram Counter which was assigned was to receive Daak(Mkd) of Minister concerned, Lok Aayukt, Vidhan/Parisad and Basic Anubhag (vuqHkkx) and  qua petitioner it was mentioned to receive local Daak(Mkd), letters and Parcel and others. After this allocation of work has been done, order dated 10.08.2006 has been passed changing the Counter of the petitioner. Even the counter affidavit which has been filed same does not reflect that any point of time  Government Order dated 30.05.2006 has been kept in mind by the Authority concerned. Authorities in their wisdom earlier in consonance of the said provision changed the Counter and thereafter said order has been sought to be reversed on account of the fact that respondent no. 3 is disabled person and always present on his table due to which there has been no hurdle or problem in performing the work relating to local Daak(Mkd) and in the interest of work in the department, respondent no. 3 has been again posted in his previous place under the special circumstances. Result of the same is that the Counter of the petitioner has been changed petitioner has been sent back at his previous place of posting. The question as to whether Government Order dated 30.05.2006 can be permitted to be ignored.

Here in the present case counter affidavit does not reflect that order dated 10.08.2006 has been passed keeping in view the policy as contained in Government Order dated 30.05.2006.

Consequently matter requires reconsideration by the Assistant Deputy Director of Education (Science) Education Department U.P. at Allahabad, as such liberty is given to the petitioner to move fresh representation within three weeks from today alongwith certified copy of this order before Assistant Deputy Director of Education (Science) Education Department U.P. at Allahabad who shall look into the grievance of the petitioner and take appropriate decision on the same keeping in view the Government Order dated 30.05.2006 after providing opportunity of hearing to Tulsiram, respondent no. 3 preferably within six weeks from the date of presentation of certified copy of this order. Whatever decision so taken on the same, same be communicated to the petitioner.

With above direction present writ petition is disposed of.

15.09.2006

Dhruv          

     


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.