Heard Sri Vinod Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Vivek Kumar Shukla, learned Addl. Chief Standing Counsel for the State-respondents.
By means of this petition, the petitioner, who is serving on the post of Senior Assistant, has been transferred from Headquarters to Hameerpur by means of order dated 15.7.2021 passed by Director, Arth Evam Sankhya Prabhag, Rajya Niyojan Sansthan, Lucknow (Annexure No.1). The impugned order of transfer is a routine transfer made in public interest transferring as many as 33 employees at various places and name of the petitioner finds place at serial no.26.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has assailed the aforesaid order on the ground that the petitioner was initially serving at Hameerpur till 2018 and on his own request, he was transferred from Hameerpur to Lucknow on 8.5.2018 on the medical ground as he is suffering from kidney ailment of which his treatment is going on in Ram Manohar Lohiya Institute of Medical Sciences, Lucknow. He has further submitted that the petitioner is having only one kidney, therefore, his frequent treatment is required in the good hospital and the hospital of category of Ram Manohar Lohiya Institute of Medical Sciences, Lucknow is not available in Hameerpur, therefore, he shall suffer irreparably, if he is relieved for Hameerpur. He has also submitted that even as per transfer policy, the petitioner should not have been transferred within a period of seven years. He has further drawn attention of this Court towards the handicapped certificate being issued by the Medical Authority, Barabanki, U.P. explaining that the petitioner is a patient of hearing impairment and his handicap level is 50%. Therefore, even as per the transfer policy, the candidates of handicapped category should be exempted from routine transfer unless there is any exigency transferring the petitioner from one place to another place. Besides, the petitioner has responsibility of ailing mother, who is about 75 years of age and there is no one in the family to look after.
Sri Vivek Kumar Shukla, learned Addl. Chief Standing Counsel has opposed the request of the petitioner by submitting that this is a routine transfer order made in either public interest or on request, therefore, it should not be interfered in the interest of the department. He has further submitted that the transfer policy is only guidelines and has got no statutory force, therefore, for execution of guidelines of the transfer policy, no direction may be issued unless the transfer has been made against the statutory provision or in a malafide manner. He has also submitted that so far as the transfer in a period of three years is concerned, there is no guideline in the transfer policy to the effect that no transfer shall be made in a period of three years, rather it has been indicated that the employees of different categories shall be transferred after completion of particular period as indicated in the transfer policy. Sri Shukla has further submitted that even as per own case of the petitioner, he has not claimed any benefit of being handicapped person, therefore, for assailing transfer order, no such ground should be taken by the petitioner. As per Sri Vivek Kumar Shukla, the transfer being incidence of service and if any interference is made in a routine manner, the entire adjustment of the employees would be affected. Sri Shukla has also drawn attention of this Court towards various orders of this Court wherein the transfer order has not been interfered on the alleged ground of violation of transfer policy etc. Be that as it may, there is no dispute that the transfer being incidence of service, therefore, the employee concerned should not normally assail the same and should abide by the transfer order inasmuch as it relates with the public interest. The transfer order has, however, been interfered by this Court if the same has been passed in violation of statutory provision/ Rules or in a malafide manner but no such ground is available in this writ petition. So far as the compassion of the petitioner is concerned, the same may very well be looked into by the competent authority inasmuch as it is a domain of the competent authority to consider the bonafide compassion of an employee and pass appropriate order but a routine transfer order made in public interest should not be interfered normally.
Accordingly, without interfering with the transfer order dated 15.7.2021, I hereby provide liberty to the petitioner to prefer a representation to the competent authority taking all pleas and grounds, which are available to him, enclosing therewith relevant documents, which are necessary for disposal of the representation, within a period of seven days and if such representation is preferred by the petitioner, the authority competent shall consider and decide the same strictly in accordance with law and as per policy, with expedition, preferably within a period of one month from the date of receipt of the representation. It is made clear that if the petitioner submits his joining at the transferred place in the meantime, even then said representation shall be considered and disposed of in a manner directed above and the decision shall be communicated to the petitioner forthwith.
In the aforesaid terms, the writ petition is disposed of.
Order Date :- 29.7.2021 RBS/-