RAJ KUMAR WADHWANI Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) SOMETIMES orders for transfer are not cherished by the employees and bureaucrats, although] its importance for running an efficient and better Government is unquestioned. In the words of Justice Holmes, "The machinery of the Government would not work if it were not allowed a little play in its joint". (Bain Peanut Co. v. Pinson (1930) 75 Law Ed. 482) It appears that the petitioners are amongst such employees who on receipt of the order for transfer dated 17th June, 1993 passed by the State Government instead of joining the place of posting, preferred these petitions before this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution.

(2.) BEFORE we proceed to consider the validity of the order of transfer, we propose to notice certain facts and various legislative changes which 'have given rise to challenge of the order of transfer which is impugned in these petitions.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioners on the strength of Section 6 of the U. P. General Clauses Act argued that the petitioners stood provisionaly absorbed in the Development Authorities Centralised Service under the U. P. Ordinance No. 19 of 1984 and the said, provisional absorption remained uneffceted by the repealing Ordinance No. 10 of 1985 which was subsequently replaced by the U. P. Act No. 21 of 1985. According to the learned counsel for the petitioners there is no manifest intention in the repaling Ordinance to destroy the rights, acquired by the petitioners under the provisions of the Ordinance No. 19 of 1984.