Heard Sri Anurag Tripathi, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents.
By means of this petition, the petitioner has assailed the transfer order dated 15.7.2021 passed by the Chief Engineer (Electrical), Irrigation and Water Resources Department, U.P., Lucknow transferring as many as 54 employees at various places in the State of U.P. and name of the petitioner finds place at serial no.54 whereby the petitioner, who is serving on the post of Junior Engineer in the Department, has been transferred from Aligarh to Badaun.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn attention of this Court towards paras-7, 8, 9 & 10 of the writ petition wherein plight of the petitioner has been indicated. Precisely, 73 years' old mother of the petitioner is suffering from brest cancer and her treatment is going on at Aligarh and his wife is expecting second child in the month of September, 2021. There is no one in the family to look after both the aforesaid problems. Therefore, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that if the transfer of the petitioner is stayed only upto December, 2021 or till the next transfer session, he may manage his responsibilities.
Learned Standing Counsel has opposed the aforesaid request of the learned counsel for the petitioner by submitting that this is a routine transfer of as many as 54 employees of the department in public interest and if the transfer order of the petitioner is interfered, the entire chain of transfer shall be disturbed. He has further submitted that the petitioner is serving at Aligarh from date of his initial appointment in the year 2015, therefore, his transfer would be warranted. He has also submitted that transfer being an incidence of service, therefore, the employee concerned should follow the direction of the transfer order instead of challenging the same, if it is made in public interest.
Be that as it may, it is true that transfer is an incidence of service, therefore, the employee concerned should follow the transfer order, if it is passed in public interest. The law is very clear that the transfer order may be interfered with by the constitutional court, if the same has been passed in violation of statutory provisions/ Rules or in a malafide manner. Both the aforesaid grounds are missing in this case, rather the impugned transfer order has been passed in the public interest, therefore, I do not find any good reason to interfere with the transfer order so far as the case of the petitioner is concerned. However, so far as plights of the petitioner as indicated in paras-7 to 10 of the writ petition are concerned, the petitioner may approach the competent authority and the authority competent may consider the plight of the petitioner and pass appropriate order.
Therefore, without interfering the transfer order dated 15.7.2021 and without entering into merits of the issue, I hereby dispose of this writ petition at the admission stage permitting the petitioner to prefer a fresh representation to the competent authority taking all pleas and grounds, which are necessary for disposal of the representation along with copy of this order within a period of one week. If such representation is preferred by the petitioner within the aforesaid stipulated time, the authority competent shall dispose of the aforesaid representation of the petitioner by speaking and reasoned order, strictly in accordance with law, with expedition, say within a period of one month from the date of receipt of the representation. While passing appropriate order, the plight of the petitioner should be considered in a positive manner. It is also made clear that if the petitioner is relieved from the present place of posting to his transferred place in the meantime, even then the authority competent shall dispose of the representation, as directed above, and decision thereof shall be intimated to the petitioner forthwith.
In the aforesaid terms, the writ petition is disposed of finally.
Order Date :- 29.7.2021 RBS/-
[Rajesh Singh Chauhan,J.]