MAHABIR PRASAD GUPTA Vs. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has challenged two orders dated 9th November. 1998 contained in Annexures-1 and 2 to this writ petition. By the Impugned order contained in Annexure-1, the Upri Ganga Nahar Adhunlkikaran Khand has been restructured as Gun Niyantran Khand. Basti and is being shifted to Basti. By the second order, the charge was directed to be handed over in accordance with the provisions made in the said order. Relying on these two orders, learned counsel for the petitioner Mr. Arvind Kumar Sharma contends that on account of such restructuring, the petitioner would be transferred. Such transfer will affect adversely on the petitioner since his wife is suffering from kidney problem. Therefore, according to him. these two orders should be quashed.

(2.) Mr. I. S. Slngh. learned standing counsel on the other hand opposes the said contention on the ground that if for administrative reasons, the project is transferred or reorganised or restructured, the same does not confer any right on an individual employee to challenge the same, even if such restructuring affects him and causes any hardship. Therefore, according to him, the writ petition Is misconceived.

(3.) Mr. Sharma however, relied upon a decision in the case of S. C. Duggal v. Department of Personnel and others, to support his contention that the petitioner having made a representation, he could not be transferred without considering the same. He also contends that in similar circumstances, this Court was pleased to stay the order of transfer. One such order is mentioned in paragraph 7 of the writ petition. wherein it is stated that an order was passed In Writ Petition No. 17811 of 1998 relying on an order dated 13th April. 1998 passed in Writ Petition No. 10974 of 1998. In the said order, the representation of the Ministerial Association of the irrigation Department was directed to be considered and till such consideration, the transfer could not be implemented.