Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

O.P. AWASTHI versus STATE OF U.P. AND OTHERS

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


O.P. Awasthi v. State Of U.P. And Others - WRIT - A No. 24939 of 2006 [2006] RD-AH 9054 (5 May 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.32

Civil Misc.Writ Petition No. 24939 of 2006

O.P.Awasthi .....Petitioner

Versus

State of U.P. & others .....Respondents ******

Hon'ble S.Rafat Alam, J.

Hon'ble Sudhir Agarwal,J.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner.

In the instant writ petition the petitioner is aggrieved by the order of his transfer dated 21.4.2006 from Kanpur to Shahjahanpur.

Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that within a short span of time the petitioner is subjected to transfer thrice. It is submitted that the first order of transfer was passed on 17.6.2005 transferring him from Kanpur to Allahabad. Thereafter, again on 20th September, 2005 he was transferred from Allahabad to Kanpur and now vide order dated 21st April, 2006 he has been transferred to Shahjahanpur from Kanpur.

We do not find any force in the submission for the reason that the first order of transfer was passed on 17.6.2005 transferring him from Kanpur to Allahabad. However, on promotion from the post of Senior Supply Inspector to Area Rationing Officer he was transferred from Allahabad to Kanpur, which is in fact not a transfer but an order to post him on promotion. The impugned order of transfer, in fact, was passed on 21.9.2005. It appears that the petitioner has raised grievance against his superiors, i.e., the District Supply Officer alleging that he has serious threat to his life. It further appears that he went to lodge an FIR against his superiors. However, when the FIR was not lodged then he has sent an application to the Director General of Police and Principal Secretary (Food), U.P. Lucknow a copy whereof is enclosed as Annexure-10 to the writ petition. Thus, it is not correct to say that the petitioner has been subjected to frequent transfer. Besides that it is well settled legal proposition of law that the order of transfer is an incidence of service and a government servant holding a transferable post, can be transferred and there can be no exception to it.

Therefore, we do not find any merit in the writ petition. It is, accordingly, dismissed.

Dated: 5.5.2006

SKM


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.