Subhash Chand Vs. State of U.P. and Others

Subhash Chand vs State of U.P. and Others

Type Court Judgment Court Allahabad Decided Nov 27, 2000

~3 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/452169

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/452169
Court: Allahabad High Court
Judge: Shyamal Kumar Sen, C.J. and ;Sudhir Narain, J.
Decided On: Nov 27, 2000
Case Number: Special Appeal No. 731 of 2000
Subject: Service

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Service - invalid transfer - petitioner challenging order of transfer to new State - transfer order issued ealier when State was not created - Government order prescribing reason of its non effect issued subsequently - transfer of Government servants to be guided by new policy - respondents estopped from transferrin...

Key legal issue: Service

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Subhash Chand

Advocate D.K. Srivastava, Adv.

Respondent

State of U.P. and Others

Advocate Senior Consel

Legal References

Reported In: 2001(1)AWC235; (2001)1UPLBEC129

Excerpt

service - invalid transfer - petitioner challenging order of transfer to new state - transfer order issued ealier when state was not created - government order prescribing reason of its non effect issued subsequently - transfer of government servants to be guided by new policy - respondents estopped from transferring petitioner till creation of new state. - .....counsel for the parties and have perused the records of the case. 2. the special appeal arises out of judgment and order of the learned single judge dismissing the writ petition of the petitioner wherein the petitioner has challenged the impugned order of transfer. earlier also, the petitioner challenged the transfer order in which learned single judge directed his representation to be considered by the authority concerned and till then, the transfer order was directed to be stayed. the representation of the petitioner was rejected by the concerned authority and he was relieved from the post where he was working and was directed to join the transferred post in the state of uttaranchal. the petitioner (appellant herein) challenged the order of rejection. learned single judge, however, dismissed the writ petition on the ground that the transfer order was passed on august 7, 1999, the representation of the petitioner pursuant to the earlier writ petition was rejected on december 21, 1999, the uttaranchal state has come into existence later on and reference to the government order dated september 30, 2000, was not justified since the same pertains to the persons who were not transferred. 3. the petitioner was already transferred in the year 1999. sri d. k. srivastava, learned counsel for the petitioner, has, however, placed reliance on the last portion of paragraph 2 of the government order dated september 30, 2000 mentioned on page 26 of the writ petition which is set out herein below : 4. relying upon the said portion of the government notification dated september 30, 2000, learned advocate for the petitioner submitted that the transfer order issued earlier, but not implemented, shall not be given effect to and the persons affected thereby shall not be transferred. the learned single judge has not considered this aspect of the matter. we are of the view that although the transfer order was issued much earlier in point of time to the creation of state of.....

Full Judgment

Shyamal Kumar Sen, C.J.

1. Wehave heard learned counsel for the parties and have perused the records of the case.

2. The special appeal arises out of Judgment and order of the learned single Judge dismissing the writ petition of the petitioner wherein the petitioner has challenged the impugned order of transfer. Earlier also, the petitioner challenged the transfer order in which learned single Judge directed his representation to be considered by the authority concerned and till then, the transfer order was directed to be stayed. The representation of the petitioner was rejected by the concerned authority and he was relieved from the post where he was working and was directed to join the transferred post in the State of Uttaranchal. The petitioner (appellant herein) challenged the order of rejection. Learned single Judge, however, dismissed the writ petition on the ground that the transfer order was passed on August 7, 1999, the representation of the petitioner pursuant to the earlier writ petition was rejected on December 21, 1999, the Uttaranchal State has come into existence later on and reference to the Government order dated September 30, 2000, was not justified since the same pertains to the persons who were not transferred.

3. The petitioner was already transferred in the year 1999. Sri D. K. Srivastava, learned counsel for the petitioner, has, however, placed reliance on the last portion of paragraph 2 of the Government order dated September 30, 2000 mentioned on page 26 of the writ petition which is set out herein below :

4. Relying upon the said portion of the Government notification dated September 30, 2000, learned advocate for the petitioner submitted that the transfer order issued earlier, but not implemented, shall not be given effect to and the persons affected thereby shall not be transferred. The learned single Judge has not considered this aspect of the matter. We are of the view that although the transfer order was issued much earlier in point of time to the creation of State of Uttaranchal but for the reason as provided by the Government notification dated September 30, 2000, it cannot be given effect to. Therefore, the transfer order, in respect of the petitioner since not implemented till the creation of the State of Uttaranchal, cannot be implemented and will be guided by the new policy of transfer of Government servants. Since the Government itself provided for the aforesaid procedure in respect of the transfer orders not implemented, the State Government cannot take out different stand at this stage and is estopped from contending otherwise. This, however, shall not prevent the respondent-authorities to pass any other order in accordance with law as the State Government may be advised.

5. The special appeal is allowed to the extent indicated above.

Same Court & Year Allahabad · 2000 Same Parties Subhash Chand vs State of U.P. and Others Same Subject Service Same Judge Shyamal Kumar Sen, C.J. and ;Sudhir Narain, J.

Service