# Sanjay Kumar Singh v. State of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2020) 6 ILRA 839
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2020-02-24
- **Case number:** WRIT A No. 2776 of 2020
- **Bench:** Shamim Ahmed
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/sanjay-kumar-singh-v-state-of-u-p-ors-45804
- **Pages:** 3

## Headnote

A. Service Law - Transfer Policy - In
effecting transfer, the fact that the
children of an employee are studying
should be given due weight, if the
exigencies of the service are not urgent.
Petitioner submits that in the impugned order
the place of transfer is not mentioned and the
education of his son, who is studying in Class
11, will get disturbed, and he will not get
admission anywhere in the mid-term. The
Hon'ble Court held that the Court has limited
powers u/Art. 226 to interfere in the transfer
order, but issued direction to respondent to
consider and decide the representation of the
petitioner by passing a speaking and reasoned
order. (Para 2, 5, 7, 8)

Writ Petition disposed of. (E-4)

Precedent followed:

## Text

6 All. Sanjay Kumar Singh Vs. State of U.P. & Ors. 839
applicable and the applicant may get
benefit under the new scheme and not
under the old scheme.

15. For all the reasons afore-stated, I
hold that the petitioner is not entitled for
the benefit of old pension scheme. The
writ petition is devoid of merit and is,
therefore, dismissed.
----------
(2020)06ILR A839
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 24.02.2020

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE SHAMIM AHMED, J.

WRIT A No. 2776 of 2020

Sanjay Kumar Singh ...Petitioner
Versus

State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Pradeep Kumar Bhardwaj

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C.

A. Service Law - Transfer Policy - In
effecting transfer, the fact that the
children of an employee are studying
should be given due weight, if the
exigencies of the service are not urgent.
Petitioner submits that in the impugned order
the place of transfer is not mentioned and the
education of his son, who is studying in Class
11, will get disturbed, and he will not get
admission anywhere in the mid-term. The
Hon'ble Court held that the Court has limited
powers u/Art. 226 to interfere in the transfer
order, but issued direction to respondent to
consider and decide the representation of the
petitioner by passing a speaking and reasoned
order. (Para 2, 5, 7, 8)

Writ Petition disposed of. (E-4)

Precedent followed:

1. Director of School Education Madras . &
ors.Vs O. Karuppa Thevan, 1994 Supp. (2)
SCC 666 (Para 3, 7)

Petition
challenges
order
dated
04.02.2020,
passed
by
Additional
Superintendent of Police, Establishment
U.P.

(Delivered by Hon'ble Shamim Ahmed, J.)

1. This writ petition has been filed
by the petitioner with the following
relief:-

(i) Issue a writ, order or
direction in the nature of certiorari
quashing the impugned order dated
04.02.2020 passed by respondent no.6
against the petitioner only. (Annexure
No.1 to this writ petition).

(ii) Issue a writ, order or
direction in the nature of mandamus
directing the respondent no.1 to formulate
a Uniform Annual transfer policy with
regard to the entire police force.

(iii) Issue a writ, order or
direction in the nature of mandamus
directing
the
respondents
not
to
transfer/relieve the petitioner from his
respective place of posting in pursuance
of the impugned order and also direct the
respondents to decide the representation
of the petitioner dated 06.02.2020 within
stipulated period as fixed by this Hon'ble
Court.

(iv) Issue any other suitable
writ, order or direction which this
Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper
under the facts and circumstances of the
case.
840 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

(v) Award the cost to the
petitioner from the respondents.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner
submits that in the impugned transfer
order the place of transfer is not
mentioned where the petitioner has been
transferred. Learned counsel for the
petitioner further submits that the son of
the petitioner is studying in Class-11 in
Bharat Ram Globel School, Greater
Noida and if he is transferred in the mid
term, the education of the petitioner's son
will disturb and he will not get admission
anywhere in the mid term. In the next
year the son of the petitioner is appearing
in Class-12 and as per the Rules of
Central Board of Secondary Education,
Class-11 & 12 has to be appeared from
the same School.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner
further submits that in view of the
Hon'ble Apex Court judgment in the case
of Director of School Education Madras
and Others Vs. O. Karuppa Thevan,
reported in 1994 SCC, Supl. (2) 666, no
mid term transfer can be done except if
the exigencies of the service are not
urgent.

4. It is contended by learned counsel
for the petitioner that the petitioner has
already filed a detailed representation
dated 06.02.2020 against the transfer
order, which is still pending before the
respondent no.6 and no final order has
been passed.

5. Learned Standing Counsel
submits that the transfer order is rightly
passed and this Court under Article 226
of the Constitution of India have limited
powers to interfere in the transfer order.

6. I have heard the learned counsel
for the parties. From the perusal of the
transfer order dated 04.02.2020, it appears
that the name of the petitioner was find
place at serial no.1 and the place of
transfer is not mentioned in the impugned
order. Further the son of the petitioner is
studying in Class-11 in District Gautam
Budh Nagar and if the petitioner is
disturbed
in
the
mid
session,
the
education of his son will be disturbed and
there is very-less chance that the son of
petitioner will get admission in any
college during mid session at the newly
transferred place.

7. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the
case of Director of School Education
Madras and Others Vs. O. Karuppa
Thevan, reported in 1994 SCC, Supl. (2)
666 was pleased to observe as under:-

"Although there is no such
rule, we are of the view that in effecting
transfer, the fact that the children of an
employee are studying should be given
due weight, if the exigencies of the
service are not urgent. The learned
counsel appearing for the appellant was
unable to point out that there was such
urgency in the present case that the
employee
could
not
have
been
accommodated till the end of the
current academic year."

8. In view of the discussion made
above, the respondent no.6 is directed to
consider and decide the representation
dated 06.02.2020 of the petitioner by
passing a speaking and reasoned order
in view of the law laid down by the
Hon'ble Apex Court within a period of
six weeks from the date of production
of certified copy of this order.
6 All. Smt. Neha Saxena Vs. State of U.P. & Ors. 841

9. The petitioner shall not relieved
from the place of his present posting, if he
has already not been relieved till the
decision taken by the respondent no.6 on
the representation filed by the petitioner.

10. With the aforesaid observation,
the writ petition is finally disposed of.
----------
(2020)06ILR A841
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 24.02.2020

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE SHAMIM AHMED, J.

WRIT A No. 2881 of 2020

Smt. Neha Saxena ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Ashish Dwivedi

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C.

A.
Service
Law
-
Compassionate
Appointment - U.P. Recruitment of
Dependent of Government Servants
Dying
in
Harness
Rules,
1974:
Section 2(c) - Married daughter is
entitled
to
be
considered
for
compassionate appointment. Exclusion
of married daughter from the ambit of the
expression 'family' in Rule 2(c) is illegal
and unconstitutional being violative of
Articles 14 and 15 of the Constitution of
India. (Para 8, 10)

Writ Petition allowed. (E-4)

Precedent followed:

1. Neha Srivastava Vs St. of U.P. & anr. ,
Special Appeal (D) No. 863 of 2015 (Para 8,
10)
2. The State of U.P. & anr. Vs Neha
Srivastava, Special Leave to Appeal (C) No.
22646 of 2016 (Para 8, 10)

Petition
challenges
order
dated
31.01.2020, passed by Superintending
Engineer, Budaun/Pilibhit Zone, P.W.D.
Bareilly.

(Delivered by Hon'ble Shamim Ahmed, J.)

1. This writ petition has been filed
by the petitioner before this Court, under
Article 226 of the Constitution of India
with the following prayers;

"(i) to issue a writ, order or
direction in the nature of certiorari
quashing the impugned order dated
31.01.2020 (Annexure No.4) passed by
respondent No.4 to this writ petition.

(ii to issue a writ, order or
direction in the nature of mandamus
commanding the respondents to appoint
the petitioner under Dying-in-Harness
Rules on suitable post forthwith.

(iii) to issue a writ, order or
direction in the nature of Mandamus
commanding the respondents to appoint
the petitioner under Dying-in- Harness
Rules on suitable post forthwith.

(iv) Award costs of the petition
to the petitioner."

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner
submitted that the father of the petitioner
late Krishna Kumar Saxena was a regular
employee
posted
as
Administrative
Officer in the office of P.W.D. and while
being in service he died on 15.11.2019
leaving behind the petitioner and her
mother Smt. Mamta Saxena, the father of
the petitioner was only earning member