Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

NAGENDRA GIRI versus STATE OF U.P. AND OTHERS

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Nagendra Giri v. State Of U.P. And Others - WRIT - A No. 64171 of 2006 [2006] RD-AH 19989 (24 November 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. 64171 of 2006

Nagendra Giri

Versus

State of U.P. and others

Hon'ble V.K.Shukla,J.

Petitioner was transferred from Siddarthnagar to Gorakhpur vide order dated 30.06.2006 passed by Director, Bal Vikas Seva and Pushtahar, U.P. at Lucknow. After petitioner was transferred he came to Gorakhpur and was posted in city. Petitioner submits that he has been performing and discharging duties in the City and thereafter order has been passed by District Proramme Officer, according placement to the petitioner at Pipraich and one Smt. Rani Pandey working at Pipraich has been sought to be adjusted in City.

Counsel for the petitioner placed much reliance on the Circular letter dated 19.05.2003 wherein directives have been issued addressed to  District Programme Officer/Bal Vikas Pariyojana Adhikari (Incharge) mentioning therein that transfer qua Sevika, Clerk and other employees are being effected from one project to other by the District Magistrate and Chief Development Officer at their own level which is not at all appropriate it would be appropriate in future if any transfer is to be made, then same be implemented and given effect to after prior permission is obtained on this score.

Learned Standing Counsel on the other hand contended that petitioner was transferred from Siddarthnagar to Gorakhpur and in this background in the transfer order no place of posting has been provided for then it is totally within the domain of the authorities concerned to accord placement at any place within the district, as such no infirmity whatsoever is there in the impugned order.

After respective arguments have been advanced factual position which is emerging is to the effect that petitioner was transferred from Siddarthnagar to Gorakhpur and in the transfer order which has been passed at no point of time Director, Bal Vikas Seva and Pushtahar, U.P. at Lucknow had mentioned any particular project wherein petitioner was to perform and discharge duties as such it is for the the Bal Vikas Pariyojana Adhikari to see as to where person should be placed and the authority in its wisdom initially thought to place the petitioner at the Town and subsequently placement has been modified once Director, Bal Vikas Seva and Pushtahar, U.P. at Lucknow has not specified the place of posting while passing the order of transfer from one district to other, then it is well within the domain of the District Programme Officer, to accord placement to an incumbents within the District, in the exigency of service.

Circular letter dated 19.05.2003 will not come to the rescue of the petitioner for the simple reason that said circular would be applicable only when incumbents are appointed in project and are transferred from one project to another then qua the same, if any modification is to be made then prior concurrence has been made necessary. Here petitioner has not been appointed in a particular project, as such according internal placement is within the domain authority.

Next submission of the petitioner is that his wife is suffering from Cancer and getting treatment by the Doctor at Gorakhpur, who are expert and transfer at the distance of 70 Km. would cause lot of personal inconvenience to him.  

Transfer and posting are within the domain of the authority concerned and  it is for the authority to see as to to where an incumbent should be posted and where his services can be best utilized. However as personal inconveniences is being sought to be pointed out, consequently, liberty is given to the petitioner to represent the matter within two weeks from today  before the District Magistrate, Gorakhpur who shall consider the claim of the petitioner within next four 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.

Till the matter is not decided petitioner shall not be compelled to go at transferred place and this order will in no way effect the right of Smt. Rani Pandey, who has not at all impleaded as party in the writ petition, and in case she has joined at transferred place then she will not be disturbed.

With the above direction present writ petition is disposed of.

Dated 24th November, 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.