Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2003 DIGILAW 1293 (ALL)

Abdul Rahman Ansari v. Collector

2003-05-23

RAKESH TIWARI

body2003
RAKESH TIWARI, J. ( 1 ) HEARD Counsel for the parties. ( 2 ) BY means of this petition the petitioner has challenged his order of transfer dated 21. 8. 2000 which is alleged to be out come of a complaint against him. ( 3 ) IT is submitted that Tehsildar, Tamkuhiraj was making illegal deduction of Rs. 50/- from the salary of the Lekhpals and accordingly complaint was made to the higher authorities by the petitioner as President of Lekhpal Sangh on 8. 10. 1996. When the grievance of the Lekhpals of tehsil Tamkuhiraj was not redressed the petitioner submitted representations dated 30. 1. 1997 and 14. 2. 1997 to the authorities. Consequently the Collector by letter dated 6. 5. 1997 wrote to the sub-Divisional Officer, Sadar to ensure that payment of salary to the Lekhpals is made without any deduction and without and delay. ( 4 ) THE aforesaid order dated 21. 8. 1997 was challenging by means of Writ Petition No. 28861 of 1997 wherein following ad-interim order was passed by this Honble Court on 2. 9. 1999: "learned Standing Counsel representing all the respondents prays for and is granted four weeks time to file counter affidavit. Rejoinder affidavit may be filed within two week thereafter. List on 27. 10. 1997. In view of statement made in Paragraph Nos. 4 to 14 particularly in view of the Government order (Annexure-8 to the writ petition), the operation of impugned order dated 21. 8. 1997 (Annexure-7 to the writ petition) shall not be given effect to till 7. 11. 97. Sd/d. K. Seth, 2. 9. 1997. " ( 5 ) ULTIMATELY the said writ petition came to be heard on 2. 8. 2000 and the same was allowed. ( 6 ) IT is further submitted by the petitioner that Sri Ram Adhar Bhaskar, Revenue Inspector, Turk patti, Tehsil Tamkuhiraj has ingratiated himself with the Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 and he was compelling all the Lekhpals to pay Rs. 100 to 200. He also compelled the Lekhpals to pay Rs. 50 to 100 per disputed case under Section 34 of the Land Revenue Act. It is alleged that the petitioner in his capacity of President of Lekhpal Union again made a complaint-dated 30. 4,2000 against R. A. Bhaskar before the Collector with copy thereof to the Additional District magistrate, Sub-Divisional Officer and Tehsildar, Tamkuhiraj. 50 to 100 per disputed case under Section 34 of the Land Revenue Act. It is alleged that the petitioner in his capacity of President of Lekhpal Union again made a complaint-dated 30. 4,2000 against R. A. Bhaskar before the Collector with copy thereof to the Additional District magistrate, Sub-Divisional Officer and Tehsildar, Tamkuhiraj. The Additional District magistrate instead of taking action against the Revenue Inspector issued the impugned order dated 21. 8. 2000 again transferring the petitioner from Tehsil Tamkuhiraj to Tehsil Hata, It is stated that the Additional District Magistrate (Finance/revenue), Kushi Nagar has no jurisdiction to transfer the petitioner in view of the Government Order referred to above much less without obtaining prior permission/approval of Collector. It is further submitted that no prior permission/approval was obtained by Additional District Magistrate (Finance/revenue), kushinagar before issuing transfer dated 21. 8. 2000 not due to any administrative exigencies but it out come of the said complaint due to mala fides. ( 7 ) LASTLY, it has been submitted that the petitioners sons are studying and their study of sons would be effected. The said transfer order has been issued in utter violation of principle of natural justice. The petitioner is President of Lekhpals Unions, which is registered and recognized by the Government and in view of the Government Order dated 3. 3. 1983 as such the said transfer order, is bad. By the Government Order No. 393-ka-4-7-E-M/83, dated 3. 3. 1983 it was provided that an office bearers of the Government Employees Union may not be transferred for two years from the date or assuming the post. The election of Lekhpals Union was held on1 14. 2. 2000 wherein the petitioner was elected as President of the said Union. The tenure of office bearer as three years, which has come to an end on 13. 2. 2003. ( 8 ) FROM the arguments of the petitioner, it is not the disputed facts that tenure of the officer, which is 3 years, has come to an end on 13. 2. 2003. Hence, now he cannot get the benefit of the govt. Order dated 3. 3. 83. The petitioner has been stationed at Tehsil Hata since 21. 8. 97 and presently had been stationed at Tamkuhiraj. In pursuance of the interim order dated 2. 9. 2. 2003. Hence, now he cannot get the benefit of the govt. Order dated 3. 3. 83. The petitioner has been stationed at Tehsil Hata since 21. 8. 97 and presently had been stationed at Tamkuhiraj. In pursuance of the interim order dated 2. 9. 97 in writ Petition No. 28861 of 1997, it is also not in dispute now the authorities who had got mala fides that is alleged by the petitioner or no longer posted at Tamkuhiraj. The petitioner has only alleged mala fides, and has not evidenced the same by any in incorrigible evidence/documents before this Court. ( 9 ) MERE allegations of mala fides are not proof of mala fide, which require to be established by additional evidence in the writ petition. It is now universally accepted that Courts should be slow in interfering with the order of transfer more than 5 years have passed and in any case and the children of the petitioner must have passed out from the class, in which they were studying at the relevant time. The mid-session is over long back. There is not question of any benefit of mid-session be given to the petitioner. The Court should be slow in tinkering with the transfer policies in respect of its employees. ( 10 ) IN view of the case, stated above the writ petition fails and is dismissed accordingly. The interim order is vacated as the services of the applicant are transferable fresh transfer order may be passed by the competent authorities in accordance with law. No order as to costs. . .