MAYA Vs. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Ms. Shreya Chaudhary, learned counsel for petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the State.

(2.) Petitioner, by the present writ petition has challenged the order of transfer dtd. 12/7/2021 as well as order dtd. 12/8/2021 whereby representation of petitioner is rejected.

(3.) Learned counsel for petitioner submits that petitioner, who is Class-IV employee has been transferred from Lucknow to Kanpur by transfer order dtd. 12/7/2021 on administrative ground. The said order does not give any reason whatsoever for transferring the petitioner. Petitioner has approached this Court on ground that Class-IV employee cannot be transferred so far away. This Court directed the representation of petitioner to be considered and decided on merits. While deciding the representation, large number of allegations were leveled against the petitioner which includes that she remains on leave, she acts in whimsical manner which causes disturbances in the work, she is careless in attending insured persons/patients. Reference is made to certain letters written by some officers concerned. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that in the given circumstances the transfer amounts to transfer on punishment which could not be made except following due process. Learned counsel for petitioner further submits that even presuming Class-IV employee is to be transferred on punishment, the same cannot be to a far away place and has to be within the same district. Further submission is that the impugned order is also passed without providing any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner.