Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2003 DIGILAW 1673 (ALL)

Kiran Tripathi v. U. P. Rajkiya Nirman Nigam Ltd.

2003-07-28

N.K.MEHROTRA

body2003
ORDER : N.K. MEHROTRA, J. 1. The Petitioner Smt. Kiran Tripathi is a stenographer in the office of the Company Secretariat of U.P. Rajkiya Nirman Nigam Ltd., Lucknow. She has challenged her transfer order Annexure-1 by which she has been transferred from the office of the Company Secretary, Head Office, Lucknow, to the office of the Additional General Manager, North Zone, Lucknow. 2. Admittedly, the office of the Additional General Manager, North Zone is still in Lucknow. It is alleged in the petition that it is going to be shifted to Faizabad. Admittedly, the Petitioner is working in Lucknow since the appointment. The date of appointment is not disclosed in the petition. 3. There are three grounds to challenge the transfer order; firstly the husband of the Petitioner is a leader in the union who has made agitation for the enhancement of the dearness allowances; secondly, the Petitioner has an eleven months old child and there is no one in the family to look after her child except her and her husband who is also an employee of the U.P. Rajkiya Nirman Nigam; thirdly, the transfer order has not been passed by the General Manager, Headquarters who was authorised by the Board to pass transfer order of employees of Group 'C' and 'D' category. 4. After hearing the parties, I find that the transfer order has been passed by the approval of the Managing Director. Therefore, this contention has no force that the transfer order has not been passed by the General Manager, Headquarters. The other contentions are not legally sound to impugn the transfer order. 5. It is well-settled that this Court can interfere with an order of transfer under Article 226 of the Constitution of India on very limited ground, namely, that the transfer order has been passed contrary to any statutory provision or has been passed by a person who is not competent authority to do so or is mala fide (See Mrs. Shilpi Bose and others Vs. State of Bihar and others, AIR 1991 SC 532 and Union of India v. S.L. Abbas AIR 1992 SC 2444). No such ground exists in the present case. 6. Shilpi Bose and others Vs. State of Bihar and others, AIR 1991 SC 532 and Union of India v. S.L. Abbas AIR 1992 SC 2444). No such ground exists in the present case. 6. Lastly, it has been submitted by the learned Counsel for the Petitioner that there is genuine personal problem of the Petitioner if she is transferred because the office of the Additional General Manager is being shifted to Faizabad and she has made representation to the Managing Director and the Chairman of the Corporation but those representations are not being decided. I am of the view that if the representation is made, it should be decided otherwise it amounts to inaction on the part of the authority concerned. Therefore, at the time of disposal of the writ petition, it can be directed that the representation of the Petitioner Annexure-6 should be decided by the Chairman, U.P. Rajkiya Nirman Nigam Ltd. within a period of two weeks from the date a certified copy of this order is received. 7. In view of the above, the writ petition is dismissed with the direction to the Chairman, U.P. Rajkiya Nirman Nigam Ltd. that he shall decide the representation of the Petitioner within a period of two weeks from the date a certified copy of this order is received.