Allahabad High Court
Anil Kumar vs State Of U.P. And 4 Others on 7 August, 2023
Author: Ajit Kumar
Bench: Ajit Kumar
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:157807 Court No. - 34 Case :- WRIT - A No. - 12285 of 2023 Petitioner :- Anil Kumar Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Pratik Chandra Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. Hon'ble Ajit Kumar,J.
1. Heard Sri Pradeep Chandra, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Pratik Chandra, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Standing Counsel.
2. Petitioner, who has been working as Deputy Jailer at District Jail, Kanpur Nagar, is aggrieved by the transfer order dated 30.06.2023, whereby, he has been transferred to District Jail, Fatehpur.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was transferred to Kanpur Nagar only on 15.07.2021 from District Jail, Aligarh and while being posted there, he was sent on attachment basis for a month on 28.02.2022 to District Jail, Banda and then for an another month on 20.03.2023 to District Jail, Chitrakoot. Learned counsel for the petitioner next submitted that the petitioner's father who is about 82 years of age has been suffering from cardiac problem for quite some time and while the transfers were being considered under the transfer policy dated 07.06.2023, a pace maker came to be installed upon the father of the petitioner and resultantly he could not make proper application to be retained at Kanpur. He submits that he made a representation to the authority that he needed to take care of his ailing father and accordingly despite relieving him in a hot haste, the Deputy Inspector General (Prisons Administration & Reforms Services), U.P. and passed an order on 14.07.2023 holding him back at Kanpur Nagar, till 31st July 2023.
4. Sri Chandra, learned Senior Advocate has argued that there was no administrative exigency involved in transferring the petitioner within two years of his posting at Kanpur Nagar and majority of the transfers being made on personal request, petitioner's request to be retained at Kanpur Nagar, was required to be considered. He also argued that the administrative exigency does not arise in the case also on account of the fact that in District Jail, Kanpur Nagar there are 7 sanctioned posts of Deputy Jailers out of which five persons besides the petitioner are posted there including a female and considering that there are 3000 jail inmates, more officers are required to be posted at Kanpur Nagar than Fatehgarh where only 1000 jail inmates are there. He submits that it hardly makes any difference between a District Jailer by promotion or Deputy Jailer by recruitment as once the officer is holding a post is liable to call upon to attend and discharge the duty as per the duty chart. He submits that if the petitioner is retained for a year or two to look after his ailing father at Kanpur who is under treatment there for his cardiac issue, no prejudice is going to be caused to the respondents.
5. Learned Standing Counsel has however argued that it is for the administration to decide as to how to adjust its officers and in what number they are to be posted at a particular place looking to the need and exigency and which by itself cannot be a matter of judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution. It is argued that the petitioner being a government employee and posted on a transferable post, cannot raise a grievance that he has any vested right under the policy to remain at a station, may be even on medical grounds. However, he could not dispute that the petitioner's relieving was with held under the order of competent authority dated 14.07.2023 looking to the illness of his father.
6. Learned Standing Counsel submits that at this stage that matter can be directed to be examined by the competent authority. He also however, submits that a transfer order is general in nature and any interference with the transfer order of a particular officer would certainly be affecting the entire list and will be causing more administrative difficulties than a solution.
7. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and their arguments raised across the bar, looking to the special facts and circumstances of the case where the petitioner had been transferred to Kanpur Nagar only on 15.07.2021 as Deputy Jailer and while he has only served for about 2 years there and his father is also ailing as a Pacemaker has been installed and the age of the father is 81 years, I find it to be a fit case where a sympathetic consideration should be accorded by the authority concerned.
8. In view of the above, this petition stands disposed of with a direction to the competent authority in the matter namely the respondent no. 3 to look into and consider the grievance of the petitioner, if he makes a representation afresh within two weeks from today, in the light of observations made herein above and the relevant provisions as contained under the Government Order dated 07.06.2023 and pass appropriate orders as expeditiously as possible preferably within a further period of two weeks. Until such decision is taken or for a period of 30 days, whichever is earlier, petitioner shall not be forced to join at the transferred place. Petitioner, if reports for working at District Kanpur Nagar, he shall be permitted to work as directed herein above and his continuance shall abide by the decision that will be taken by the competent authority in the matter.
Order Date :- 7.8.2023 IrfanUddin