Allahabad High Court
Rajesh Rai vs State Of U.P. And 3 Others on 16 July, 2019
Author: Sunita Agarwal
Bench: Sunita Agarwal
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Court No. - 36 Case :- WRIT - A No. - 10511 of 2019 Petitioner :- Rajesh Rai Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Sanjay Kumar Om Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Abhishek Srivastava Hon'ble Mrs. Sunita Agarwal,J.
The petitioner herein is working on the post of technician, Grade-I (Boiler Maintenance Division-1) in Anpara Thermal Power Station, Sonbhadra.
On humanitarian ground ie on account of same adverse medical condition and illness of his mother, the petitioner had sought transfer to Panki Thermal Power Station, Panki, Kanpur which was turned down vide order dated 7.12.2018, on the representation moved by the mother of the petitioner.
The order of rejection of the request of the petitioner is not subject mater of challenge in the present petition. The said order clearly records that Panki Thermal Power Station Panki, Kanpur is closed permanently and as such, there was no occasion for transfer of the petitioner to Panki Thermal Power Station. It is noteworthy that the petitioner has been transferred to Anpara on 26.6.2018, only one year back.
After a brief submission, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner seeks not to press his prayer for transfer to Panki Thermal Power Station Panki, Kanpur, but his request for transfer to any other subsidiary units may be considered by the respondent no.2 namely Managing Director, U.P. Rajya Vidyut Utpadan Nigam Ltd, Lucknow looking to the adverse medical conditions being faced by the petitioner and limited medical resources available in District Sonbhadra.
Submission is that the request of the petitioner to transfer elsewhere has not been duly considered and, hence, the petitioner is entitled for relief from this Court.
To this submission of learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Abhishek Srivastava, learned counsel for the respondent nos.2 and 4 submits that no such request had been made by the petitioner. There is no inaction of the respondent and hence, the present petition cannot be entertained.
Looking to the said submissions and noticing the fact that the representation appended as Annexure-'12' to the writ petition making request for transfer was sent through registered post only on 5.7.2019. This Court, therefore, does not find any justification to issue mandamus at this stage.
However, liberty is granted to the petitioner to represent his claim before the respondent no.2 afresh. In case, any such representation is filed, respondent no.2 would be under obligation to take decision, as expeditiously as possible, in accordance with law considering the grievances of the petitioner.
The writ petition is disposed of.
Order Date :- 16.7.2019 Harshita