OM PRAKASH YADAV Vs. STATE OF U.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a case where an employee, who was transferred as long back as in May, 1998 could dare to defy order of transfer for years together though there was no authority in the shape of stay order passed by this Court or by the executive authorities. It appears that challenging the order of transfer passed on 29.5.1998, transferring the petitioner from Tube Well Division, Etah, Region Aligarh to Agra, he preferred Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 33046 of 1998 which was disposed of on 4.10.1998 permitting the petitioner to make a representation and the authorities were directed to decide the same. Admittedly, the order of transfer was neither stayed nor the petitioner was otherwise had any authority not to comply with the order of transfer. The authority concerned rejected petitioner's representation by order dated 5.12.1998. Even till that date, order of transfer was not complied with. The order rejecting representation was challenged in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 865 of 1999 which was allowed on 22.11.2001 and the authority concerned was directed to decide petitioner's representation afresh giving reasons. By a detailed order, the representation was rejected vide order dated 23.1.2002, where against petitioner came in third Writ Petition No. 21510 of 2002 which was dismissed on 5.7.2005, where against Special Appeal No. 959 of 2005 was preferred which was also dismissed by order dated 22.8.2005. Even during this entire period, petitioner did not comply with the order of transfer having been passed as long back as on 29.5.1998. Then again petitioner came to this Court in fourth Writ Petition No. 65052 of 2005 seeking a mandamus commanding the respondents to allow him to join at transferred place at Agra. In this writ petition, an explanation was sought by this Court vide order dated 5.10.2005 from authorities concerned as to why no action has been taken against the petitioner for not complying order of transfer passed on 29.5.1998. Ultimately this writ petition was also dismissed on 22.5.2013.

(2.) THE fact remains that the petitioner having not complied with the order of transfer, the competent authority, in the meantime, by order dated 3.10.2005 had terminated him from service.

(3.) THERE are at least two major hurdles in petitioners way. First that the defiance of order of transfer on the part of petitioner is an admitted fact. which has continued for almost six years.