Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

DR. ADWAIT BAHADUR SINGH @ DR. A.B. SINGH versus STATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Dr. Adwait Bahadur Singh @ Dr. A.B. Singh v. State Of U.P. And Another - WRIT - A No. - 56632 of 2007 [2007] RD-AH 18011 (19 November 2007)

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 AT ALLAHABAD

C.M.W.P. No. 56632 of 2007

Dr. Adwait Bahadur Singh Vs. State of U.P. and others

Hon'ble S. Rafat Alam, J.

Hon'ble Sudhir Agarwal, J.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner.

The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 29.06.2007 transferring him from Mainpuri to Jalaun.

Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that since the petitioner's son is handicapped and is getting treatment in Mainpuri, therefore, the order of transfer would cause unnecessary hardship to the petitioner. It is also contended that the order of transfer has been passed in mid-session which would disrupt study of his son.

We are not inclined to accept the aforesaid submissions and to interfere with the order of transfer. Admittedly, the petitioner was in Mainpuri for a long period i.e. since 1993. It is also pointed out by learned Standing Counsel that during the entire period of service, the petitioner throughout remain posted either at Etah or Mainpuri. The handicapped certificate of petitioner's son, enclosed as Annexure-7 to the petition, is issued on 26.04.2002 i.e. more than 5 years ago and, therefore, on that basis we are not inclined to interfere with the order of transfer. Besides that, from his own showing, he has already been relieved from Mainpuri on 13.08.2007 and submitted joining at the transferred place on 16.08.2007. The contention that the order was passed in mid-session is also not correct. It is apparent from the order of transfer that it was made on 29.06.2007. Thus, we do not find any reason to interfere with the impugned order of transfer. The petition is accordingly dismissed.

Dt/-19.11.07

AK


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.