Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 0, Cited by 3]

Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)

Shri Laxmi Narayan Sahu vs Union Of India & Ors on 1 November, 2017

                                                             1

    06                               WP 24322(W) of 2017
01.11.2017
   sb
                                        Shri Laxmi Narayan Sahu
                                                   Vs.
                                          Union of India & Ors.


                            Mr. Mokaram Hossain
                                        .... For the petitioner.

                            Mr. Raj Kumar Gaurisaria
                            Ms. Smita Gaurisaria
                                         ... For Union of India.



                    Let the affidavit of service filed in Court today be kept with the

                record.

                    Heard the learned advocates for the parties.

                    The petitioner is an employee of the Military Engineer Service,

                presently posted in Kolkata. He says that his wife who is residing in his

                native place in Odisha, is suffering from COPD (Bronchitis), for which

                he made an application for transfer to Odisha, so that he may look

                after his wife. The application is still pending. The petitioner's prayer is

                rather innocuous, he prays for a direction upon the respondents to

consider his application at an early date.

Mr. Gaurisaria, learned advocate representing Union of India, submits that when such an application is made it is processed at two stages, viz, local authority and the higher authority. Even if the local authority has recommended the case of the petitioner, the ultimate decision is to be taken by the superior authority. The case of the petitioner is lying with the higher authority, which could not take any decision in view of the pendency of the present writ petition.

In view of the submission made by the learned advocates for the respective parties, I dispose of the writ petition by directing the 2 respondent no.3, to consider and dispose of the application made by the petitioner positively within a period of four weeks from the date of communication of this order. The respondent no.3 is also directed to communicate the order within a week thereafter. In case any further document is required by him to take a decision he shall communicate the same to the petitioner and the petitioner shall cooperate with the respondent no.3.

Since this writ petition is disposed of without calling for affidavits allegations made therein are deemed to have been denied by the respondents.

Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be given to the learned Advocates for the parties on the usual undertakings.

(Dr. Sambuddha Chakrabarti, J.)