Heard learned counsel for the parties.
This Court has passed the order dated 23.07.2019 as under:-
"Heard Sri Avinash Chandra learned counsel for petitioner and the learned State Counsel appearing on behalf of opposite parties. Supplementary affidavit filed by the petitioner is taken on record.
The petitioner is aggrieved by the transfer order dated 10th July, 2019 whereby he has been transferred from District Gorakhpur to District Mainpuri. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the services of the petitioner are governed by the Uttar Pradesh Rajistrikaran Vibhag (Zila Adhisthan) Lipik Varg Sewa Niyamawali, 1978 whereunder the services of the petitioner can be transferred only within the district and not outside, as has been done by means of the impugned order.
Learned counsel has also drawn attention to subsequent order dated 22nd July, 2019 whereby the transfers of certain persons indicated in the impugned transfer order have been cancelled without any reasons being indicated. He has submitted that the same amounts to an arbitrariness on the part of the opposite parties.
The learned State Counsel is granted two days' time to seek instructions as to whether the services of the petitioner are governed by the aforesaid Rules of 1978 and as to whether his services can be transferred only within the district. Learned State Counsel shall also obtain the instructions as to the circumstances under which the transfer of certain persons indicated in the impugned transfer list has been subsequently modified without assigning any reason.
List this case on 26th July, 2019 as a fresh case."
In compliance of the aforesaid order, the learned Standing Counsel has produced the copy of instructions letter dated 25.07.2019 preferred by the Inspector General of Registration, U.P., Lucknow addressing to the office of the Chief Standing Counsel, High Court, Lucknow, the same is taken on record.
As per the aforesaid instructions, since the Rules, 1978 has been rescinded and now the amended Rules, 2014 has come into force, therefore, the petitioner may not claim that being a member of the district cadre, he may not be transferred from the district. However, so far as the point that the transfer orders of some persons have been cancelled, no specific instructions has been given as to why the transfer orders of some persons have been cancelled or modified.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner's wife is suffering from heart ailment and the aforesaid exigency may be considered by the authority concerned sympathetically.
Petition is opposed by learned Standing Counsel by stating that petitioner holds a transferable post and has remained stationed at the same place for more than three years. It is also stated that grievance of the petitioner with regard to medical exigencies can be examined by the authority concerned.
In the facts and circumstances of the present case, it would be appropriate to dispose of this petition by permitting the petitioner to represent his grievance against the order of transfer, highlighting his medical exigencies and the transfer policy before the authority competent within one week from today. In case petitioner does so, the authority concerned shall examine petitioner's grievance, keeping in view the transfer policy as also various medical exigencies and an appropriate order would be passed in that regard, within a further period of four weeks, thereafter. For a period of four weeks or till disposal of representation, whichever is earlier, the order of transfer shall be kept in abeyance. Further continuance of petitioner shall abide by the fresh order to be passed, as indicated above.
Subject to the aforesaid observations, this writ petition stands disposed of.
Order Date :- 26.7.2019 Suresh/ [Rajesh Singh Chauhan,J.]