Back
HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
M. Katju, ACJ and Umeshwar Pandey, J.
Brijpal Sharma
Versus
State of U.P.
Special Appeal 921 of 2004
Decided On : 22 August 2004
Special Appeal 921 Of 2004
Interim Order - Transfer Order - The court discussed the appealability of interim orders and held that a special appeal lies against an interim order staying a transfer order, considering transfer as an exigency of service.
Fact of the Case:
The special appeal was filed against the interim order staying the transfer order of the writ petitioner and directing that he shall continue to work as Junior Engineer.
Finding of the Court:
The court allowed the appeal and set aside the impugned order, emphasizing the appealability of interim orders staying transfer orders.
Issues: Interim order appealability, transfer orders as exigency of service
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that a special appeal lies against an interim order staying a transfer order because transfer is considered an exigency of service, and the court should not ordinarily interfere with transfer orders.
Final Decision: The appeal was allowed, and the impugned order was set aside.
( 1 ) HEARD Sri A. K. Srivastava learneed Counsel for the appellant and Sri I. P. Singh and learned standing Counsel for the respondents.
( 2 ) THIS special appeal has been filed against the interim order of the learned Single Judge dated 22. 7. 2004 staying the transfer order of the writ petitioner and directing that he shall continue to work as Junior Engineer, Vikas Khand Sikandarabad, District Bulandshahar and be paid his salary.
( 3 ) IN Special Appeal No. 555 of 2004, State of U. P. v. Smt. Meera Sankhwar, decided on 12. 7. 2004, this Court has in great detail discussed which interim orders are appeallable and which are not. The entire case law has been discussed in that decision and hence we are not referring to the same.
( 4 ) SUBSEQUENTLY in Special Appeal No. 860 of 2004, Shesh Nath Singh v. Mukesh Singh and ors. , decided on 26. 7. 2004 and in Special Appeal No. 855 of 2004, Union of India v. Raghubir prasad, decided on 21. 7. 2004 and Special Appeal No. 911 of 2004, decided on 5. 8. 2004, sandeep Kumar Singh v. State of U. P. , we have held that a special appeal lies against an interim order of a learned Single Judge staying the transfer order because transfer is an exigency of service and hence this Court should not ordinarily interfere with the transfer orders. In this decision also the case law has been considered e. g. , the decision of the Supreme Court in Union of India v. S. L Abbas, AIR 1993 SC 2444 shilpi Bose v. State of Bihar, AIR 1991 SC 532; union of India v. N. P. Thomas, AIR 1991 SC 1605; Chief Manager (Tel) N. E. Telecom Circle v. Rajendra Ch. Bhattacharjee, AIR 1995 SC 813; State of UP. v. Dr. R. N. Prasad, (sic) (Suppl) 3 scc 214; N. K. Singh v. Union of India and Ors. , (1994) 6 SCC 98; Abani Kante Ray v. State bank of India v. Anjan Sanyal and Ors. , AIR 2001 SC 1748 and Public Services Tribunal Bar association v. State of U. P. and Ors. , (2003) 4 SCC 104.
( 5 ) FOR the reasons given above this appeal is allowed. The impugned order is set aside.
. .
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
