Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
Rajesh Singh Chauhan, J.
Avnesh Kumar - Petitioner
Vs.
State Of U.P. Thru. Chief Secy. & Ors. - Respondent
Service Single No.21036 of 2021
Decided On : 20-09-2021
Constitution of India,1950 - Post of Accountant in the office of Superintendent - Suspending the operation of all transfer orders of the employees - Petitioner has assailed the order passed by the Special Secretary, Finance (Services) Anubhag-1, Government of U.P. addressing to Director, Internal Accounts and Audit Examination, suspending the operation of all transfer orders of employees made for the session until further orders - Petitioner is that the petitioner, who is serving on the post of Accountant in the office of Superintendent, Central Jail has been transferred vide order public interest to the office of Finance Controller - petitioner has contended that as soon as the transfer order passed, petitioner submitted his joining at the transferred place – Held, Competent authority, appropriate orders would be passed. In case the competent authority finds that earlier transfer orders issued in favour of the petitioner and other employees are appropriate orders, such employees would be permitted to discharge their respective duties at the transferred place and if it is found that such transfer orders were not passed strictly as per policy or law, those transfer orders would be cancelled and the employees would have to submit their joining at the earlier places. In any case, since no final decision has yet been taken, therefore, grievance of the petitioner that by means of impugned order earlier transfer orders of the petitioner have been cancelled is misconceived - Transfer order has been suspended for the time being till any appropriate order is passed by the competent authority - transfer order of petitioner is permitted to be existed, in that case he shall remain be posted at Farrukhabad and in case his transfer order is cancelled, even in that case he shall remain be posted - Petitioner shall remain be posted in any eventuality. Therefore, I wonder as to why the present transfer order has been challenged by the petitioner when his place of posting is unchanged in any circumstance - writ petition is dismissed.
JUDGMENT :
Rajesh Singh Chauhan, J.
1. Heard Sri Jay Shanker Shukla, learned counsel for the petitioner and Ms. Jyoti Sikka, learned Additional Advocate General of U.P. for the State-respondents.
2. By means of this petition, the petitioner has assailed the order dated 27.7.2021 passed by the Special Secretary, Finance (Services) Anubhag-1, Government of U.P. addressing to the Director, Internal Accounts and Audit Examination, Lucknow suspending the operation of all transfer orders of the employees made for the session 2021-22 until further orders. The petitioner has also assailed the office order dated 28.7.2021 passed by the Director, Internal Accounts and Audit Examination, U.P., Lucknow in compliance of the order dated 27.7.2021 staying the transfer orders issued from 22.6.2021 to 15.7.2021.
3. Contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner, who is serving on the post of Accountant in the office of Superintendent, Central Jail, Fatehgarh, Farrukhabad, has been transferred vide order dated 15.7.2021 (Annexure No.8) in the public interest to the office of Finance Controller (Vittiya Paramarshdata), Zila Panchayat, Farrukhabad. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that as soon as the transfer order dated 15.7.2021 was passed, the petitioner submitted his joining at the transferred place, therefore, after submitting his joining at the transferred place, his transfer order may not be suspended by means of impugned order dated 27.7.2021. Further, the consequential order dated 28.7.2021 passed by the Director concerned staying all transfer orders is illegal.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that some identical writ petitions are pending and in some of identical writ petitions, interim orders have been granted. Learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn attention of this Court towards an order dated 17.9.2021 passed by the Division Bench of this Court in Special Appeal No.339 of 2021 whereby the Division Bench of this Court has stayed the order dated 27/28.7.2021 on the basis of principles of parity observing that since the interim order has been passed in favour of some employees, therefore, the appellant before the Division Bench is also entitled for the same benefit in view of the dictum of the Hon'ble Apex Court in re; Vishnu Traders vs. State of Haryana and others, reported in 1995 Supp. (1) SCC 461. For the convenience, the order dated 17.9.2021 passed by the Division Bench in Special Appeal No.339 of 2021 is being reproduced herein below:-
Heard.
Admit.
Issue notice.
Since the respondents are represented by learned Standing Counsel no steps are required to be taken for issuance of notice.
Learned counsel for the appellant submits that vide order dated 15.07.2021 several persons were transferred on their own request. The petitioner/appellant was also transferred on his request on the post of Accountant. The said transfer order was subsequently suspended by the State Government vide order dated 27.07.2021 after joining of the transferred persons including the appellant on the transferred place. The competent authority through his order dated 28.07.2021 directed to join back at the earlier place of posting. The aforesaid orders were challenged by several persons by filing separate writ petitions namely Writ Petition No.17278 (SS) of 2021 in re: Akansha Tripathi vs. State of U.P. and others, Writ Petition No.9907 (SS) of 2021 in re: Munish Kumar Srivastava vs. State of U.P. and others, Writ Petition No.18115 (SS) of 2021 in re: Gyanendra Kumar vs. State of U.P. and others, and Writ Petition No.19103 (SS) of 2021 in re: Shankar Lal Agrawal vs. State of U.P. and others, wherein the
Point of Law : Therefore, in view of the exposition of law made by the Hon'ble Apex Court the impugned order has to be tested by this Court on the reason or the grounds mentioned therein and the resp....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the transfer of a government employee should be made in public interest and for administrative reasons, and frequent transfers without justifi....
Judicial review of transfer orders is limited; absence of a defined transfer policy renders such orders arbitrary, necessitating formulation of a policy.
Employer must implement approved request transfer orders per policy; failure violates guidelines permitting judicial interference, though employee must join new post despite challenge absent stay.
The court upheld the transfer order and rejection of representation based on the interpretation of the correction order and government guidelines.
A transfer order made in public interest must be supported with sufficient reasons, and the absence of reasons makes the order arbitrary and illegal.
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
