MUMINLAL Vs. STATE OF UP

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN the instant petition, the petitioner has come up for quashing the order of the Commissioner, Rural Development, U. P. dated 31. 7. 2007 transferring him from Kanpur Nagartoazamgarh.

(2.) LEARNED Counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner's daughter and wife are suffering from serious ailment on account of which he has made several representations to the authorities to provide posting near Lucknow where necessary medical facilities are available. He submitted that since those representations, which are Annexures-6 and 7 to this writ petition, have not been disposed of, the order of transfer may be stayed.

(3.) VERY recently also in Prabir Banerjee v. Union of India and others, (Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 20706 of 2006) decided on 5. 10. 2007 the Apex Court has reiterated that transfer is an incident of service. Following the earlier law laid down in respect of transfer of employee from one place to another, recently the Apex Court in Mohd. Masood Ahmad v. State of U. P. and others, 2007 (8) SCC 150 has said that an order of transfer is a part of service conditions of an employee which should not be interfered by the Courts unless the Courts find that either the order is mala fide or is pertaining to some service rule or the authority issuing the order is not competent to pass the same. In the present case none of the above grounds exists and, therefore, there does not appear to be any reason warranting interference in the impugned order of transfer by this Court. However, since the petitioner has already made representation to the authorities concerned, it is provided that this order shall not preclude the authorities from considering the same and passing appropriate order in accordance with law. It is made clear that we have not expressed any opinion with respect to the prayer of the petitioner for giving posting somewhere in Lucknow and it is entirely for the competent authority to look into the matter and pass appropriate order on the representation of the petitioner in accordance with law and the existing policies in relation to the transfer. 4. With the aforesaid observations, this writ petition stands dismissed. .