Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:42909 Court No. - 18 Case :- WRIT - A No. - 8224 of 2025 Petitioner :- Ved Prakash Tripathi Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. Of Home Lko And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Alok Kr. Misra 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. Petition has been filed challenging order dated 30.06.2025 whereby petitioner has been transferred to the Vigilance Headquarter Lucknow from his earlier posting in Commissionerate Lucknow. Also under challenge is the order dated 19.07.2025 whereby petitioner's representation preferred against transfer has been rejected. 3. It is submitted that earlier petitioner had filed Writ-A No. 7348 of 2025 against the aforesaid transfer order, which was disposed of vide order dated 09.07.2025 directing the authority concerned to consider petitioner's representation particularly in view of the fact that he had barely six months to superannuate. 4. It is submitted that impugned order has been passed rejecting petitioner's representation primarily on the ground that pension papers pertaining to petitioner are already under preparation and cannot be a ground for seeking posting as desired by petitioner particularly since the Government Order dated 06.05.2025 is in the nature of a guideline and is not mandatorily binding upon the authorities. It has been submitted that since petitioner has less than two years to superannuate, his case was covered in terms of paragraph-5 (v) of the aforesaid Government Order and he was, therefore, required to be exempted from the transfer. It is, therefore, submitted that directions issued by this Court earlier have not been adhered to. 5. Mr. Sandeep Sharma, learned State Counsel has refuted submissions advanced by learned counsel for petitioner and submits that impugned order clearly adverts to the fact that petitioner has been posted in his current place of posting for the past 16 years and was, therefore, required to be transferred. It is submitted that even otherwise petitioner continues to be posted in District Lucknow and therefore, there is no prejudice caused to petitioner with regard to his superannuation. 6. Upon consideration of submissions advanced by learned counsel for parties and perusal of material on record, it is evident that petitioner is seeking benefit of paragraph-5 (v) of the Government Order dated 06.05.2025, which provides a choice to a Class-2 Officer, such as petitioner, for providing options for his posting except for the home district. It has been admitted by learned counsel for petitioner that petitioner's home district is Sultanpur. It is thus evident that petitioner continues to be posted in the adjoining district of Lucknow. The impugned order also indicates the fact that petitioner's pension papers are already under preparation. 7. It is settled law that transfer is an incidence of service and an employee such as petitioner does not have a vested right for any particular posting. It is also evident from record that petitioner never submitted any option of district posting in terms of paragraph-5 (v) of the Government Order dated 06.05.2025. 8. In terms thereof, this Court is of the considered opinion that the present place of posting would be ideal for petitioner since it is adjoining to his home district and particularly since his pension papers are already under preparation in District Lucknow. 9. In view of aforesaid, this Court does not find any occasion to grant indulgence. 10. The petition, therefore, is dismissed at the admission stage itself. Parties to bear their own cost. Order Date :- 25.7.2025 Satish Digitally signed by :- SATISH KUMAR BHARATI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench