Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 167 (UTT)

PRADEEP SINGH v. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND

2012-04-19

TARUN AGARWALA

body2012
JUDGMENT Heard Sri Suresh Chandra Bhatt, Advocate for the petitioner and Sri Subhash Upadhyay, Brief Holder for the State-applicant. 2. In spite of time being granted, no counter affidavit has been filed by the respondents. However, a recall application has been filed by the District Education Officer, Udham Singh Nagar (respondent no.4) to recall the order of the Court dated 21st March, 2012, by which, the Court directed the Chief Secretary, Govemment of Uttarakhand, to issue appropriate orders to suspend the District Education Officer with immediate effect. The recall application states that the District Education Officer was suspended by an order dated 29.03.2012. 3. The facts leading to the filing of the writ petition, in brief, is that the petitioner was working as an Assistant Teacher (L.T. Grade) at Pithoragarh, and by an order of 3rd June, 2011, was transferred from Pithoragarh to Udham Singh Nagar. It was alleged that in spite of the transfer order, the petitioner was not relieved, which compelled him to file the Writ Petition No.1301 (S/S) of 2011. The Court, by an order of 27th September, 2011 directed the Additional District Education Officer, Pithoragarh to relieve the petitioner forthwith to his transferred place at Udham Singh Nagar. It has come on record that pursuant to the order of the Court dated 27th September, 2011, the petitioner was relieved and he joined the place of transfer at Udham Singh Nagar on 29.10.2011. Since then the petitioner is working at Udham Singh Nagar. By an order of 31st of January, 2012 passed by Secretary, Government of Uttarakhand, a general order was passed, directing that all those persons who have been transferred outside the district, would be transferred back, and based on the said order of 31st of Janurary. 2012, the District Education Officer, passed order dated 14.02.2012, directing the petitioner to join the place of transfer, at Pithoragarh. The petitioner, being aggrieved, filed the present writ petition, contending that his transfer, back to Pithoragarh, was in gross violation ofthe interim order of the Court, and that having joined the place of transfer, should not be transferred again or sent back within a space of a few months. The petitioner also contended and prayed that he has not been paid his salary since he had joined at Udham Singh Nagar and a mandamus to that effect should also be issued. 4. The petitioner also contended and prayed that he has not been paid his salary since he had joined at Udham Singh Nagar and a mandamus to that effect should also be issued. 4. This Court, while entertaining the writ petition, had directed the respondents to give the reasons as to why the petitioner is again being transferred when the Court had directed the respondents to relieve the petitioners in the earlier round of litigation. The Court also directed the respondents to indicate as to why the salary had not been released for the last seven months. No reply was given and the Court by an order dated 21 st March, 2012, while directing the competent authority to suspend the District Education Officer, also directed the respondents to file a counter affidavit. Till date, no counter affidavit has been filed. 5. Sri Subhash Upadhyay, the learned Brief Holder of the State and also appearing for the respondent no. 4 made a fervent plea that the salary of the petitioner has been released by the Additional District Education Officer as well as the Finance Officer, working in the Office of Additional District Education Officer, on 22nd March, 2012, and that the District Education Officer upon coming to know.of the earlier interim order of the Court, did not relieve the petitioner pursuantto the transfer order dated 31st January, 2012 or of his own order dated 14th February, 2012, and allowed the petitioner to continue to work at Udham Singh Nagar. The District Education Officer has given an unconditional apology while contending that he was unaware of the order passed in the earlier Writ Petition No.1301 (S/S) of 2011 and that he was not the competent authority to release the salary of the petitioner inasmuch as the competent authority was the Additional District Education Officer as well as the Finance Officer. 6. Be that as it may. The Court finds that in spite of specific direction to file a counter affidavit, no counter affidavit has been filed and the reason for non release of the salary has not been disclosed so far, nor the reason for the petitioner’s transfer back to Pithoragarh has been disclosed. This is the sordid state of affairs at this Department. On the other hand, a prayer has been made to recall the order of suspension. This is the sordid state of affairs at this Department. On the other hand, a prayer has been made to recall the order of suspension. This Court is constraint to observe that the order and the directions of the Court, having not been complied with, does not entitle the applicant-respondent no. 4 for the recall of the order, but at the same time, the Court does not have a vindictive attitude and requires only to consider whether it’s directions has been complied with in some form or the other. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted. that the arrears of salary has been paid though belatedly and the same was released upon the directions for suspension of the District Education Officer. 7. The Court is magnanimous and has a large heart and is not vindictive. At the same time, the Court finds that mechanical orders are being passed by the State Government, transferring Assistant Teachers, without application of mind. In the instant case, the petitioner was transferred from Pithoragarh to Udham Singh Nagar, which was accepted by the petitioner, but was not being relieved. The petitioner approached this Court and a direction was issued to relieve the petitioner forthwith, which was duly complied with. The petitioner joined the place of transfer on 29.10.2011, but having worked for a few months, was again transferred back to Pithoragarh. Such transfer order is not in consonance with the transfer policy or for better administration. It also smacks of violation of the interim order. Consequently, the Court is of the opinion that the transfer order of the petitioner cannot be sustained and is quashed. The writ petition is allowed. The interim order in earlier writ petition (WPSS NO.1301 of 2011) having been complied with the said writ petition becomes infructuous and is dismissed as such. 8. Since the Court has already held that the order is required to be complied with in some form or the other and that the Court is magnanimous, the Court hereby directs the Chief Secretary to withdraw the suspension order of the respondent no.4.