GIRJA SHANKAR MISHRA Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) R. A. Sharma, J. By this petition, petitioner has challenged the order of his transfer from Allahabad Development Authority to Bareilly Development Authority. Initially this writ petition was heard by another Division Bench, but on account of non-availability of one of the Hon'ble Judges, who constituted the Bench, this case was released and Hon'ble Senior Judge has nominated our Bench for this case.

(2.) PETITIONER is Chief Accounts Officer of the Allahabad Development Authority (hereinafter referred to as the Authority ). He was transferred vide order dated 18th June, 1994 from Allahabad Authority to Bareilly Develop ment Authority. He made a representation against his transfer. His represen tation was accepted and the Government, vide order dated 22-6-1994, cancelled the aforesaid order of transfer and permitted the petitioner to continue to work as Chief Accounts Officer of the Authority. It appears that some members of the Legislative Assembly belonging to ruling Bahujan Samaj Party made repre sentation to the Chief Minister of the State for transfer of the petitioner. Some representation for transfer of the petitioner from Allahabad, was also made to Km. Mayawati, General Secretary of Bahujan Samaj Party,, who recommended to the Chief Minister for transfer of the petitioner from Allahabad. There after order dated 4-8-1994 was passed transferring the petitioner again from Allahabad Authority to Bareilly Development Authority. In pursuance of the above order of transfer the Vice-Chairman of the Authority directed the Joint Secratary, Sri Radhey Shyam Gupta, to perform the duties of the Chief Accounts Officer. Being aggrieved by the above orders the petitioner has filed this writ petition.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the Vice-Chairman of the authority has, apart from disputing the above contentions, raised two preliminary objections ; viz. ,- (1) the petitioner is guilty of concealment of the facts ; and (2) Sri Dharm Pal, who is working in place of the petitioner has not been impleaded as a party to the writ petition, and as such the writ petition is not maintainable. On merit, the contentions of the learned counsel are three ; viz, firstly, the petitioner holds a civil post under the State and as such he is liable to be transferr ed ; secondly, every employer has inherent right to transfer its employees ; and thirdly, under the conditions of his appointment, as contained in the confirmation letter, the petitioner can be trans ferred from one authority to another. LEARNED Standing counsel has reiterated the stand taken by the Government in its counter-affidavit.