Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2003 DIGILAW 1887 (ALL)

MAHENDRA SINGH v. SUGAR COMMISSIONER U P LUCKNOW

2003-08-23

RAKESH TIWARI

body2003
RAKESH TIWARI, J. Heard Counsel for the parties and perused the record. 2. By means of this petition order of transfer dated 24-3-2000 passed by respondent No. 1 is being challenged. 3. At the time of the admission ad interim order dated 1-5-2000 passed by respondent No. 1 was stayed, by which the petitioner was transferred from Bijnor to Azamgarh. 4. The contention of the petitioner is that from the perusal of the order of transfer, it is apparent that order has not been passed in the public interest nor has been passed in the interest of worker. It is submitted that mala fides intention of respondent No. 1 is apparent from the impugned order to punish the petitioner. 5. It is further submitted that the transfer order passed by respondent No. 1 is also in violation of the policy of the Government contained in the guide lines in Government order of pertaining to transfer of employees in the year 1999-2000. According to the G. O. transfer has to be made before 15 June, 1999 and if any transfer order is required to be passed subsequently, it can only be passed with the approval of the Chief Minister. 6. The contention of the petitioner that impugned order of transfer has been passed with a mala fides intention and to punish the petitioner is neither tenable nor sustainable, as no material has been placed before the Court from which the mala fides, alleged are proved. 7. In the counter-affidavit it has been stated that there is no illegality or infirmity in the order of transfer dated 24-3-2000 in the exigency of work, as there was requirement of more staff at Bijnor Guidelines for transfer of employees have no statutory force and are not enforceable in Court of law. 8. It appears from the averments made in the paragraph 12 of the writ petition that the petitioner does not want to go to the District Bijnor as there is more work. It has been stated in paragraph 12 aforesaid that there are only 3 Khandsari Units and the work in the offices of respondent No. 2 at Bijnor is more than 40 times than the work at Azamgarh. Avoiding work responsibility is not to be encouraged down by Courts and this type of attitude is abhorable. It has been stated in paragraph 12 aforesaid that there are only 3 Khandsari Units and the work in the offices of respondent No. 2 at Bijnor is more than 40 times than the work at Azamgarh. Avoiding work responsibility is not to be encouraged down by Courts and this type of attitude is abhorable. The petitioner has been enjoying the interim order since 2000 though he had already been transferred by the impugned order. 9. Transfer is an exigency of the service and cannot be avoided on the ground that there is more work in the office where the employee is posted out. No mala fides are established from either the order of transfer nor from any material document of record of petition. On the contrary it is established that petitioner has approached the court in order to avoid work and shoulder responsibility when required. It is recommended that the State Government should review the problem seriously for taking remedial measures and action to deter such employees from taking advantage by abuse of process of law. 10. The competent authority may take further necessary action against the petitioner in view of the averments made in para 12 of the writ petition for shirking from work and responsibility. 11. For the reasons stated above the writ petition fails and is dismissed with costs of rupees 2,000 for abuse of the process of law. No order as to costs. Petition dismissed. .