HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW WRIT - A No. - 5241 of 2025 Court No. - 4 HON'BLE ABDUL MOIN, J. 1. Rejoinder affidavit filed today is taken on record. 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Dr. Ashutosh Mishra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of all the respondents. 3. By means of the instant writ petition, the petitioner raises a challenge to the orders dated 19.08.2020 and 25.08.2020, copies of which are annexure-2 to the petition, whereby the petitioner had been transferred from Lucknow to Bareilly. Also under challenge is the order dated 21.10.2024, a copy of which is annexure-1 to the petition, by which the representation preferred by the petitioner has been rejected. 4. Incidentally, the challenge raised to the orders dated 19.08.2020 and 25.08.2020 in an earlier round of litigation, namely, in Writ-A No. 7108 of 2024 in re: Anand Prakash Dayal vs. Chairman of U.P. Power Corporation Limited, Lko and others, as filed by the petitioner, has already been rejected by this Court vide judgment and order dated 30.08.2024, a copy of which is annexure-3 to the petition. However, the Court, while hearing the said challenge, had left it open to the petitioner to file a representation and the said representation was directed to be decided in accordance with law by the competent authority. 5. In pursuance thereof, the representation of the petitioner has been Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Archana Rawat, Rahul Kumar Kaushal Counsel for Respondent(s) : Dr. Ashutosh Mishra Anand Prakash Dayal .....Petitioner(s) Chairman Of U.P. Power Transmission Corporation Ltd. Lko. And 5 Others .....Respondent(s) rejected vide order dated 21.10.2024. 6. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the respondents have failed to consider that (a) the wife of the petitioner is suffering from asthma and arthritis, (b) that the petitioner is suffering from arthritis, (c) that the children of the petitioner are studying, and (d) that the petitioner is the sole caretaker of his family. 7. All the aforesaid grounds as urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner are found to be patently fallacious and misconceived, considering the fact that transfer is an incidence of service and it is a prerogative of the employer to post its employee at any place. 8. Even otherwise, a perusal of the order impugned would indicate that the grievance of the petitioner has already been considered and rejected. 9. Considering the aforesaid, no case for interference with the orders impugned is made out. 10. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. 11. However, it is provided that, in the event a sufficient period of time elapses after having served at Bareilly for a reasonable duration, the petitioner shall be at liberty to submit a representation for the redressal of his grievance. September 1, 2025 cks/- WRIA No. 5241 of 2025 2 (Abdul Moin,J.) Digitally signed by :- CHANDRA KANT SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench Digitally signed by :- CHANDRA KANT SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench