Court No. - 39
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 15890 of 2018 Petitioner :- Sangeeta Saxena Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Siddharth Khare,Shri Ashok Khare, Sr. Advocate Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble B. Amit Sthalekar,J. Hon'ble Jayant Banerji,J.
Heard Shri Ashok Khare, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Shri Siddharth Khare, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the respondents.
The petitioner in the writ petition is seeking quashing of the order dated 24.01.2018, whereby, she was transferred from Bareilly to Lucknow. The petitioner is working as Deputy Director (Economics & Statistics). Earlier, she was transferred from Bareilly to Lucknow Headquarter vide order dated 18.07.2017. This order was challenged by her in Writ Petition No. 35798 of 2017 and the writ petition was disposed of by the Court vide order dated 10.08.2017 directing the petitioner to join at place of posting and thereafter file a representation before the competent authority, who was directed to decide her representation within a further period of six weeks. In pursuance of the order of the High Court, the petitioner joined at Lucknow and thereafter, submitted her representation on 19.07.2017, in which she took the plea that her husband, Dr. Neeraj Srivastava, who is a Central Government employee is suffering from polio and that her daughter is ten years old. This representation was rejected vide impugned order dated 24.01.2018.
It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the husband of the petitioner had also filed his own petition in the Central Administrative Tribunal seeking his transfer for Bareilly and in terms of the directions of the Central Administrative Tribunal, he was transferred to Bareilly. The submission of the petitioner is that the husband of the petitioner was transferred to Bareilly and she has been transferred to Lucknow.
Paragraph 4 of the impugned order, however, discloses that the petitioner has remained at Bareilly for 15 years 9 months and in any case from 2012 she has continuously remained at Bareilly, which is more than six years. The annual transfer policy dated 29.03.2018 (Annexure- 13 to the writ petition) provides that Group 'A' and Group 'B' staff and officers, who have completed three years in a district should be transferred out. In the present case, the petitioner has remained in Bareilly since 2012, which is more than six years and in any case, the totality of her service at Bareilly is 15 years 9 months.
Considering all these facts, we do not find any good ground for interfering in the impugned order of transfer dated 24.01.2018.
The writ petition lacks merit and it is, accordingly, dismissed.
Order Date :- 27.7.2018 A. V. Singh