Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:39963 Court No. - 5 Case :- WRIT - A No. - 7544 of 2025 Petitioner :- Gauri Kant Respondent :- U.P. State Bridge Corporation Ltd. Lko. Thru. Managing Director And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Ajay Kumar Pandey Counsel for Respondent :- Amit Sachan Hon'ble Abdul Moin,J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Sri Amit Sachan, learned counsel for the respondents. 2. Under challenge is the order dated 03.06.2025, a copy of which is Annexure-1 to the petition, whereby the representation of the petitioner against his transfer order dated 08.04.2025, a copy of which is Annexure-7 to the petition, has been rejected. A further challenge has been raised to the transfer order dated 08.04.2025. 3. The sheet-anchor of the claim of the petitioner is that he is due to retire on attaining the age of superannuation within two years and that the petitioner's wife is seriously ill which requires continuous medical treatment and thus a challenge was raised to the transfer order before this Court by filing Writ-A No.4417 of 2025 in re: Gauri Kant vs. U.P. State Bridge Corporation Ltd. Lko. and others. 4. This Court vide judgment and order dated 23.04.2025, a copy of which is Annexure-8 to the petition, directed the respondents to consider the grievance of the petitioner and to pass a reasoned and speaking order upon the same. 5. In pursuance thereof, the representation of the petitioner has been rejected vide order dated 03.06.2025 primarily on the ground that the Government Order providing that invariably a person on the verge of retirement should not be transferred is not applicable on the corporation. 6. Sri Sachan, learned counsel for the respondents, states that apart from the fact that the Government orders are not applicable on the corporation the other aspect is that there are no rules governing the transfer of an employee and consequently merely because the Government order may be providing that an employee at the fag end of his service career may not be transferred yet as there are no rules in the corporation as such the said ground has not prevailed on the respondents while considering the claim of the petitioner and consequently the same has been rejected. The Court does not find any error in the said reasoning of the respondents. 7. So far as the medical illness of the petitioner's wife is concerned, a perusal of the discharge summery as annexed by the petitioner himself would indicate that the petitioner's wife had undergone a minor surgery which itself does not entail a long hospitalization. 8.Considering the aforesaid discussion, no case for interference with the impugned orders is made out. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed. Order Date :- 14.7.2025 A. Katiyar Digitally signed by :- AMIT KATIYAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench