DHIRENDRA KUMAR v. STATE OF U.P. THRU. PRIN. SECY. FOOD AND CIVIL SUPPLIES LKO. AND 2 OTHERS
WRIA/12234/2025 · 2025-11-10
Manish Mathur
body2025
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 175943 (ALL) · dailylaw.ai ]
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 175943 (ALL) · dailylaw.ai ]
Judgment text
Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW WRIT - A No. - 12234 of 2025 Court No. - 7 HON'BLE MANISH MATHUR, J.
1. Heard learned counsel for petitioner and learned State Counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite parties.
2. Earlier this Court had passed the following order on 03.11.2025:-
1. Heard learned counsel for petitioner and learned State Counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite parties.
2. Present petition under Article 226 of Constitution of India has been filed challenging order dated 30.06.2024 transferring petitioner from District Siddharth Nagar to Chitrakoot. Also under challenge is
order dated 08.10.2025 whereby petitioner's representation has been rejected.
3. Earlier petitioner was suspended from service vide order dated 06.06.2025 on the allegation that he had not joined at the transferred place. The suspension order was challenged in WRIT - A No. - 9275 of 2025 and vide order dated 30.07.2025, the suspension order was revoked and disciplinary proceedings were stayed directing petitioner to join at the transferred place.
4. It is submitted that in view of fact that petitioner's transfer was effected from an aspirational District, his options were required to be taken in terms of para-4(iv) of Government Order dated 06.05.2025 due to which he submitted a representation and also filed WRIT - A No. - 8819 of 2025. The said writ petition was disposed of vide order dated 18.08.2025 directing the authorities concerned to consider petitioner's option. It is submitted that in pursuance thereof, petitioner submitted options pertaining to his posting in Lucknow, Ayodhya or Gorakhpur. The same has been rejected by means of impugned
order.
5. From a perusal of impugned order, prima facie it appears that petitioner's options were rejected only on ground that he had earlier not given any such options and even otherwise, he does not have any right of a particular posting. The order also observes that the directions issued by this Court were not on merits of the case. Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Ramesh Kumar Srivastava, Ravi Pandey, Sanjay Kumar Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C. Dhirendra Kumar .....Petitioner(s) State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Food And Civil Supplies Lko. And 2 Others .....Respondent(s)
6. Considering aforesaid facts, this Court had granted time to opposite parties twice for instructions as to why petitioner cannot be adjusted in terms of his options which were based on the Government
Order. In pursuance of such directions written instructions dated 27.10.2025 as well as instructions dated 31.10.2025, a copy of which are taken on record, have been provided. Unfortunately, aforesaid two sets of instructions also do not indicate any reason as to why petitioner's options were not considered. Both instructions reiterate the aspect that petitioner cannot be posted as per his options. Therefore not only the impugned order but also the instructions do not appear to be in accordance with directions issued by this Court on 18.08.2025.
7. In view thereof, list this case on 10.11.2025, as fresh.
8. On the next date of listing, opposite party no.2 i.e. the Food Commissioner, Food and Civil Supplies, Jawahar Bhawan, Lucknow shall appear in person particularly to provide reply as to why petitioner's options cannot be considered in terms of Government Order dated 06.05.2025."
3. In pursuance thereof, Ms. Anamika Singh, the Commissioner, Food and Civil Supplies, Lucknow, opposite party no.2 has appeared in person and has filed a short affidavit, which is taken on record.
4. It is submitted that in pursuance of directions issued earlier, the opposite parties have passed orders dated 06.11.2025 and 07.11.2025 whereby petitioner has been accommodated in Lucknow itself. Aforesaid two orders have been brought on record as Annexures A-1 and A-2 to the affidavit filed today. The same clearly indicates that nothing more remains to be adjudicated in the writ petition, which is accordingly consigned to record without any adverse effects upon benefits already granted to petitioner. November 10, 2025 kvg/- WRIA No. 12234 of 2025 2 (Manish Mathur,J.) Digitally signed by :- GIREESAN KV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench