LAWS(ALL)-2007-4-103

IMRAN HUSSAIN Vs. UNION OF INDIA

Decided On April 25, 2007
IMRAN HUSSAIN Appellant
V/S
UNION OF INDIA Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Brief background of the case, giving rise to instant writ petition, is that petitioner claims that he was appointed as clerk on regular basis at Nagar Palika Parishad, Sambhal, District Moradabad. Petitioner has contended that 'Sambhal' has been nog Operations) Act, 1958. It has been further stated that besides other posts, one post of clerk in the regulated area of Sambhal was also there and as no one was directly appointed on that post, the Prescribed authority/Sub-Divisional Magistrate Sambhal requested the Executive Officer, Nagar Palika Parishad for sending a clerk and Shahid Hussain was reverted back to Nagar Palika Parishad and thereafter, petitioner was attached to that post vide order dated 23.08.2000. Petitioner submits that he has been regularly performing and discharging duties, and there was no complaint against him from anyone. On 20.07.2002, Prescribed Authority requested for making permanent adjustment of petitioner as clerk in regulated area Sambhal giving him benefits of the service rendered in Nagar Palika Parishad.

(2.) After said letter had been written, Under Secretary, Avas Evam Nagar Vikas Anubhag vide his letter dated 04.07.2003 asked the Prescribed Authority to act keeping in view the provisions as contained under Section 16 of the U.P. (Regulations of Building Operations) Act, 1958.

(3.) Thereafter, again letter was send on 30.04.2004. Petitioner has contended that on 14.06.2004 an order was passed qua continuance of the employees in the regulated area, who were on deputation till 28.02.2005. Petitioner has contended that thereafter, Raj Kumar Dixit, respondent No. 4, clerk in regulated area Bharthana, District Etawah has been sought to be transferred to regulated area, Sambhal, District Moradabad. Petitioner has approached this Court questioning the validity of the aforementioned transfer order. Counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of respondent Nos. 2 and 3, and therein, it has been sought to be contended that petitioner is a permanent employee of Nagar Palika Parishad, Sambhal; his pay and other allowances are being paid by Nagar Palika Parishad; he has not been paid any salary from regulated area, Sambhal, and he cannot be absorbed in regulated area, Sambhal. It has been further contended that petitioner has no concern with the transfer of respondent No. 4, and he has been informed vide letter dated 29.06.2006, that petitioner cannot be absorbed in regulated area. Counter affidavit has also been filed on behalf of contesting respondent, contending therein that respondent No. 4 was appointed as junior clerk on 06.05.1987 in regulated area, Fatehpur Sikri, District Agra; he was confirmed on 01.03.1996 vide order passed by the Prescribed authority/Sub-Divisional magistrate, Kirawali, District Agra. It has been further contended that contesting respondent was transferred from Fatehpur Sikri to Deoband, District Saharanpur; he had also been accorded promotional pay, and further he was transferred vide order dated 31.05.2005 from one regulated area to another regulated area. Qua petitioner, it has been contended that he is regular employee of Nagar Palika Parishad, and he was attached to regulated area under Section 16 of the U.P. (Regulations of Building Operations) Act, 1958, and the impugned transfer order has been passed on valid grounds. In this background, it has been contended that writ petition is liable to be rejected.