Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2025 DAILYLAW 150775 (ALL)

MUKESH KUMAR DIXIT v. STATE OF U.P. THRU. PRIN. SECY. REVENUE DEPTT. U.P. LKO. AND 5 OTHERS

WRIA/7472/2025 · 2025-07-15

Manish Mathur

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:40263 Court No. - 18 Case :- WRIT - A No. - 7472 of 2025 Petitioner :- Mukesh Kumar Dixit Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue Deptt. U.P. Lko. And 5 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Anand Mani Tripathi Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. Hon'ble Manish Mathur,J. 1. Heard learned counsel for petitioner and learned State Counsel for opposite parties. 2. Supplementary affidavit filed today is taken on record. 3. Petition has been filed challenging order dated 14th June, 2025 whereby petitioner discharging duties on the post of Lekhpal has been transferred from Unnao to Hardoi. 4. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that impugned order has been passed without jurisdiction since as per the U.P. Lekhpal Service (Third Amendment) Rules 2015, particularly Rule 24 as amended, specifically confers powers on the Divisional Commissioner to transfer a Lekhpal within the division and since petitioner has been transferred within the division, transfer order could have been passed only by the Divisional Commissioner whereas it has been passed by Additional Commissioner. 5. It is further submitted that as per paragraph 5(i) of the government order dated 6th May, 2025, any transfer effected on administrative grounds requires to be approved, which would necessarily mean approval by an authority which is higher than the appointing authority and therefore it is his submission that since it is the Divisional Commissioner who was empowered to effect transfer of petitioner, any transfer could have been effected only after approval by authority higher than the Divisional Commissioner. 6. Learned State Counsel has refuted submissions advanced by learned counsel for petitioner with submission that impugned order clearly indicates impugned order having been passed in pursuance of the approval granted by the Divisional Commissioner on 14th June, 2025. It is further submitted that the government order dated 6th May, 2025 is merely in the nature of guidelines and is not mandatory or binding. It is submitted that even otherwise paragraph 5(i) of the said government order is inapplicable. 7. Upon consideration of submissions advanced by learned counsel for parties and perusal of material on record, it is evident that impugned order has been passed by the Additional Commissioner (Administration) indicating it having been passed in pursuance of approval dated 14th June, 2025 accorded by the Divisional Commissioner. As per Rules of 2015, it is the Divisional Commissioner who is empowered to effect transfer of a Lekhpal within the division. Admittedly petitioner has been transferred within the division. It is not the case of petitioner that his transfer has been effected without necessary approval by the Divisional Commissioner. 8. Submissions advanced by learned counsel for petitioner with regard to paragraph 5(i) of the government order dated 6th May, 2025 appeared attractive at first glance but lacks substance. 9. The aforesaid paragraph of the government order clearly indicates that transfer can be effected at any time on administrative grounds but approval would be required as per the transfer policy. 10. In the considered opinion of this Court as in terms of aforesaid paragraph of the government order therefore approval would be required only if such a requirement of approval is indicated in the government order and not generally in all cases. Since there is no provision in the government order for seeking approval for transfer of a Lekhpal on administrative grounds, evidently no such approval is required by any authority higher than the authority mentioned in the rules which is the Divisional Commissioner in the present case. 11. Considering aforesaid facts and circumstances, this Court does not find any infirmity with the order impugned. The petition therefore resultantly fails and is dismissed at the admission stage itself. Parties to bear their own costs. Order Date :- 15.7.2025 prabhat Digitally signed by :- PRABHAT KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench Digitally signed by :- PRABHAT KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench