Court No. - 28
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 2841 of 2019 Petitioner :- Vinay Kumar Yadav Respondent :- State Of U.P. Through Its Principal Secretary Energy, Lucknow And 5 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Pranesh Kumar Mishra,Vijay Kumar Tiwari Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Baleshwar Chaturvedi,Pankaj Srivastava
Hon'ble Rohit Ranjan Agarwal,J.
Heard Shri Pranesh Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for petitioner; learned Standing Counsel for respondent No.1 and Shri Pankaj Kumar Shukla for respondent Nos. 2 to 6.
The petitioner is a Junior Engineer in the Electricity Department.
By order of the Chief Engineer, U.P. Power Corporation Ltd. He was transferred on 09.01.2019 from Aligarh to Agra.
On the very next day, the Superintending Engineer, Electricity Test and Commissioning Circle passed an order modifying the earlier order dated 09.01.2019 passed by the Chief Engineer transferring the petitioner from Aligarh to Kanpur.
Being aggrieved by the said transfer orders dated 09.01.2019 and 10.01.2019, petitioner filed writ petition No.1164 of 2019. The said petition was dismissed with a liberty to the petitioner to approach appropriate forum for redressal of his grievance.
The petitioner on 28.01.2019 filed a representation before respondent No.3, the same has not been decided till date.
In the meanwhile, on 06.02.2019, the Superintending Engineer, U.P. Power Transmission Corporation Ltd. issued a letter that the petitioner is relieved from Aligarh and to join at Kanpur.
The submission of counsel for petitioner is that as there was contradiction in orders passed by different Authorities namely the Chief Engineer and the Superintending Engineer. He had challenged the same before this Court.
He further conteded that he withdrew the writ petition with the understanding that matter will be decided by the Chief Engineer i.e. respondent No.3, but till date he has not decided the same.
Per contra, Shri Pankaj Kumar Shukla, counsel for the Power Corporation submits that the present petition is a second petition and the petitioner had already challenged both the orders dated 09.01.2019 and 10.01.2019 and his writ petition was dismissed as withdrawn, as such the present petition is not maintainable.
Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the argument of Shri Pankaj Kumar Shukla has force to the extent that the present petition is second petition, but looking to the facts of the case, it is very surprising to note, the manner in which the Power Corporation is working.
It was on 9th January, 2019 that the Chief Engineer passed the transfer order of the petitioner and on very next day i.e. 10th of January 2019 his Subordinate Superintending Engineer modifies his order and transfer the petitioner from Aligarh to Kanpur.
It is a hard case as the petitioner is in a state of confusion as to which place he should join. Further after the withdrawal of the petition at the instance of the counsel for the petitioner. The petitioner had approached the respondent No.3, who has also kept the matter pending for about a month. In the cases of transfer where the representations are made, it is expected from the authorities concerned to take appropriate decision within a shortest span of time, so as to enable the employee to join as per the decision of the representation.
In the present case, as there are two Authorities who are passing different orders the respondent No.3 should have taken decision at the earlier considering that the order of the Chief Engineer itself was modified by the Subordinate Authorities.
In view of the above, it is expected that the respondent No.3 i.e. Chief Engineer shall decide the representation dated 28.01.2019 of the petitioner expeditiously preferably within 15 days from the production of certified copy of this order by a reasoned and speaking order and should also take note of the fact regarding the passing of the transfer order dated 10.01.2019 by his subordinate officer.
The writ petition stands disposed of. Order Date :- 22.2.2019 A.N. Mishra