U.O.I. THRU. SECY. MINISTRY OF MINES NEW DELHI AND 2 OTHERS v. ABHINANDAN SRIVASTAVA
WRIA/3849/2025 · 2025-04-11
Ajai Kumar Srivastava I, Attau Rahman Masoodi
Public Interest Litigationbody2025
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 131755 (ALL) · dailylaw.ai ]
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 131755 (ALL) · dailylaw.ai ]
Judgment text
Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:20509-DB Court No. - 1 Case :- WRIT - A No. - 3849 of 2025 Petitioner :- U.O.I. Thru. Secy. Ministry Of Mines New Delhi And 2 Others Respondent :- Abhinandan Srivastava Counsel for Petitioner :- Varun Pandey Counsel for Respondent :- Praveen Kumar Hon'ble Attau Rahman Masoodi,J. Hon'ble Ajai Kumar Srivastava-I,J.
1. Heard Sri S.B. Pandey, learned Senior Advocate & Deputy Solicitor General of India assisted by Sri Varun Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri Praveen Kumar, learned counsel for the respondent.
2. The order of transfer in the present case was passed against the respondent herein from Lucknow to Jammu & Kashmir on the post of Director, Geological Survey of India.
3. In the O.A. directed against the order of transfer filed by the respondent, a direction was issued to consider his representation on various aspects, including the ailment of his minor son, who was suffering from cerebral palsy and epilepsy. The representation made by the respondent-employee
met with the rejection giving rise to O.A. No.332/00234 of 2024. On exchange of the affidavits, it was found that the aspects, on which the representation of the employee was directed to be considered, were not addressed by the competent authority, particularly the ground, regarding which, a protection was available to him as per the Office Memorandum dated 08.10.2018. The order passed by the competent authority was, therefore, set aside. It is this judgment/ order passed by the learned Tribunal against which the Union of India has preferred the writ petition. On a careful consideration of the impugned judgment/
order passed by the Tribunal, it is found that the Tribunal has proceeded to set aside the order, whereby the representation was rejected on a specific ground of failure on the part of competent authority to consider and deal with the grounds urged in the representation, particularly the ground of the ailment of his son, who is suffering from cerebral palsy and epilepsy disease. This ground admittedly was not addressed by the competent authority. Therefore, the finding recorded by the learned Tribunal on such an issue,
in our humble consideration, does not suffer from any perversity. The Tribunal, considering the Office Memorandum dated 08.10.2018 to be binding upon the competent authority, has, thus, set aside the order of transfer. 4. Learned counsel for the Union of India, at this stage, has argued that transfer is an exigency of service, and even if there is a policy decision circulated vide Office Memorandum dated 08.10.2018, it would not imply that an employee would remain posted at one and the same place lifelong. A person holding a transferable post would nevertheless be transferred from one place to another, having regard to the comfort and convenience in the matter of looking after the disabled dependent, particularly during the age he remains a minor and dependent. In the present case, the age of the dependent, who is suffering from cerebral palsy and epilepsy, is nine and a half years. It is obvious that a dependent at such an age, suffering from cerebral palsy and epilepsy, would require a high degree of care from both the parents. 5. In these circumstances, we do not find any error in the order passed by the Tribunal. We, however, find that such a judgment cannot be construed as a binding rule against the transfer and posting of employees
protected
under
the
Office Memorandum dated 08.10.2018, which is to operate as an exception to the normal rule. Therefore, the protection granted by the Tribunal, in the facts and circumstances of the present case, where the age of the dependent at present is about nine and a half years, is restricted only to a further period of one year, whereafter it shall be open to the competent authority to consider the transfer of the respondent afresh, keeping in view all the relevant aspects of transfer and posting policy viz-a-viz the public interest. 6. The writ petition is, accordingly, disposed of.
(Ajai Kumar Srivastava-I, J.) (Attau Rahman Masoodi, J.)
Order Date :- 11.4.2025 cks/- Digitally signed by :- CHANDRA KANT SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench