# S.P. Shukla v. State of U.P. and Ors - **Citation:** (2013) 3 ILRA 1489 - **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad - **Decided:** 2013-10-21 - **Case number:** Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.40847 of 2013 - **Bench:** Rajes Kumar, Mahesh Chandra Tripathi - **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/s-p-shukla-v-state-of-u-p-and-ors-42732 - **Pages:** 3 ## Headnote Constitution of India, Art.-226-Transfer order on letter of MLA for adjustment of his relative-letter not denied-held-such order neither in Public interest nor on administrative exigencies-quashed-with cost of Rs. 10,000. Held: Para-5 & 6 ## Text 3 All] S.P. Shukla Vs. State of U.P. and Ors. 1489 the part of the pension and allowing the interim pension. This Government Order provides the payment of interim pension where the departmental proceeding are pending. None of the circular, Government Order or any provision has been referred before us, which provides that where no departmental proceeding is pending, still the pension can be withheld. 16. In view of the above, the writ petition is allowed and mandamus is being issued to the respondents to pay full pension to the petitioner within a period of two months from the date of presentation of the certified copy of this order. However, it will be open to the department to proceed afresh after the decision in the criminal case as observed by the appellate authority while certifying the integrity of the petitioner in accordance to law. -------- ORIGINAL JURISDICTION CIVIL SIDE DATED: ALLAHABAD 21.10.2013 BEFORE THE HON'BLE RAJES KUMAR, J. THE HON'BLE MAHESH CHANDRA TRIPATHI,J. Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.40847 of 2013 S.P. Shukla ...Petitioner Versus State of U.P. and Ors. ...Respondents Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri Keshari Nath Tripathi, Sri K.N. Mishra Sri Abhishek Mishra Counsel for the Respondents: C.S.C., Sri Shivaji Singh Constitution of India, Art.-226-Transfer order on letter of MLA for adjustment of his relative-letter not denied-held-such order neither in Public interest nor on administrative exigencies-quashed-with cost of Rs. 10,000. Held: Para-5 & 6 5. The endorsement/direction given by Sri Jagdev Singh, O.S.D., on 15.7.2013 has not been disputed. On the facts and circumstances, it is apparent that the petitioner has been transferred at the behest of sitting M.L.A. of Ruling Party to accommodate his relative, who is respondent no. 3 within 15 days of his posting at Kanpur. 6. On the facts and circumstances, we are of the view that the transfer order is full of malafide and is not sustainable. Such type of transfer is not expected from the Government and authorities should restrain themselves from passing such order on the dictate of politicians, contrary to the Government policy. (Delivered by Hon'ble Rajes Kumar, J.) 1. Heard Sri K.N. Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Y.K. Yadav, learned Standing Counsel appears on behalf of respondent nos. 1 and 2 and Sri Shivaji Singh, Advocate appears on behalf of respondent no. 3. 2. By means of the present petition, the petitioner has challenged the transfer order dated 24.7.2013 by which the petitioner has been transferred from Kanpur to Devipatan. 3. It is the case of the petitioner that by the transfer order dated 9.7.2013, he has been transferred from Gorakhpur to Kanpur as a Deputy Labour Commissioner. He took the charge at Kanpur and was working there. By the impugned order, the petitioner has been transferred from Kanpur to Devipatan. The petitioner has challenged the transfer order. By the interim order dated 29.7.2013, impugned transfer order has been stayed. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has been transferred on the basis of the letter of Sri 1490 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES Kailash Yadav, a sitting M.L.A., which is Annexure-7 to the writ petition. In the said letter, he recommended the posting of one Sri Ramesh Chand Yadav on the post of Deputy Labour Commissioner stating therein that he is a close relative. The contents of the letter are as follows: "dSyk'k ;kno lh&5 nk:y'kQk] fo/kk;d lik y[kuÅ A taxhiqj eks0 9415209750 8765955075 lsok esa] ekuuh; eq[;ea=h th] mRrj izns'k ljdkj] y[kuÅ A egksn;] Jh jes'k pUn ;kno&uo izksUur mi Jek;qDr ,d bZekunkj] ifjJeh ,oa fu"Bkoku vf/kdkjh gaSA budk dk;Z vR;Ur ljkguh; ,oa iz'kaluh; gSA ;g esjs djhch fj'rsnkj gSA vr% vkils lknj fuosnu gS fd Jh jes'k pUn ;kno mi Jek;qDr dh inLFkkiuk y[kuÅ {ks= y[kuÅ vFkok dkuiqj {ks=] dkuiqj esa djkus dk vkns'k iznku djus dh d`ik djsaA lknj] Hkonh;] g0 vifBr 15-7-2013 1⁄4dSyk'k ;kno1⁄2 izeq[k lfpo Je ;Fkkuqjks/k lek;ksftr djus dh vis{kk dh xbZ gSA g0 vifBr 15-7-13 1⁄4txnso flag1⁄2 fo'ks"k dk;kZf/kdkjh eq[;ea=h mRrj izns'k 'kklu^^ 5. The letter dated 15.7.2013 was addressed to the Hon'ble Chief Minister. On the said letter, O.S.D. attached to the Chief Minister, has requested the Secretary, Labour Commissioner to adjust Sri Ramesh Chand Yadav. This averment has been made in para-7 of the counter affidavit. In the counter affidavit filed by the State, the aforesaid para-7 has been replied by para-10 of the counter affidavit. The averments made in para-7 of the counter affidavit has not been denied and it has only been stated that the petitioner has been transferred in public interest/Government work. The respondent no. 3 filed counter affidavit and replied para-7 by para-10 of the counter affidavit stating therein that the contents of para-7 of the writ petition is a matter of record, but further stated that averments made in the said paragraph that the local M.L.A. is the relative of the respondent no. 3 is totally false and the letter annexed in the writ petition by the petitioner is totally forged letter. No evidence has been adduced to show that the letter is forged. The endorsement/direction given by Sri Jagdev Singh, O.S.D., on 15.7.2013 has not been disputed. On the facts and circumstances, it is apparent that the petitioner has been transferred at the behest of sitting M.L.A. of Ruling Party to accommodate his relative, who is respondent no. 3 within 15 days of his posting at Kanpur. 6. On the facts and circumstances, we are of the view that the transfer order is full of malafide and is not sustainable. Such type of transfer is not expected from the Government and authorities should restrain themselves from passing such order on the dictate of politicians, contrary to the Government policy. 7. In view of the above, the writ petition is allowed with the cost of Rs.10,000/-. The impugned transfer order dated 24.7.2013, Annexure-2 to the writ petition, is hereby quashed. -------- 3 All] Ram Naresh Vs. State of U.P. and Ors. 1491 ORIGINAL JURISDICTION CIVIL SIDE DATED: ALLAHABAD 25.10.2013 BEFORE THE HON'BLE SUDHIR AGARWAL, J. Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.44105 of 2011 Ram Naresh ...Petitioner Versus State of U.P. and Ors. ...Respondents Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri Pankaj Srivastava Counsel for the Respondents: C.S.C. Constitution of India, Art.-226- Regularization-daily wages working in forest depot-engaged prior to 29.06.97 and working in December 2001-no denial-entitled for consideration strict in accordance with seniority list prepared under rule 4(1) of Rules-subject to fulfillment of academic qualificationagainst existing vacancy in December 2001-future vacancy occurred after December 2001 shall not be clubbed- order being contrary to rule-ultra virusquashed-direction issued accordingly. Held: Para-54 The discussion made above leaves no manner of doubt that petitioner in the case in hand is entitled to be considered for regularisation, subject to the conditions, that, his seniority entitles him for consideration for regularisation against vacancies available on the date of commencement of Rule 2001 Case Law discussed: (2002) 2 UPLBEC 1595; Spl. Leave Petition No. 26664 of 2010; Writ A-58886 of 2009; 2008(1) ADJ 371; 2011(2) ADJ 594; 2007(4) ADJ 186; 2008(2) ESC 1359; Writ A No. 61444 of 2007; 2006(4) SCC 1; 2007(2) SCC 230; 2011(5) AWC 5075; 2011(2) SCC 429; 2011(4) SCC 200; 2012(6) SCC 502; 2013(3) SCC 705; 1992(Suppl) 3 SCC 217; JT 2001(8) SC 171; 1998(8) SCC 469; 1998(8) SCC 154; 2007(10) SCC 684; 2008(4) SCC 171; Civil Appeal NO. 4483-4485 of 2013; 2007(7) SCC 140; 2012(13) SCALE 124; Spl. Appeal No. 375 of 2005. (Delivered by Hon'ble Sudhir Agarwal, J.) 1. Heard Sri Pankaj Srivastava for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for respondents. Since pleadings are complete, as requested and agreed by learned counsel for the parties, I have proceeded to hear and decide it, under the Rules of the Court, at this stage. 2. Though there are several reliefs sought in this writ petition but in effect, petitioner's claim is three fold: (i) regularisation on a group 'D' post in Forest Department (ii) payment of salary at minimum of regular pay scale so long he is not regularised as per the decision in State of U.P. Vs. Putti Lal (2002) 2 UPLBEC 1595 and (iii) not to be terminated orally or otherwise. 3. Besides above, there is an additional issue in this matter. The petitioner has assailed an order dated 24.06.2011 (Annexure 16 to writ petition), which is a letter issued by Principal Conservator of Forest (Administration), U.P., Lucknow (hereinafter referred to as the "PCF (Admn.)") to the Principal Conservator , (Wildlife), U.P., Lucknow and all Chief Conservator of Forest, U.P. stating that not only vacancies newly created as supernumerary, by Government Order dated 23.06.2011, ought to be utilized for regularisation of employees in Group 'D' posts, under U.P. Regularisation of Daily Wage Appointments on Group 'D' posts Rules 2001 (hereinafter referred to as "