Allahabad High Court
/13796/2025 of ANIL KUMAR Vs STATE OF U.P THRU. PRIN. SECY. DEPTT. OF FINANCE LKO. AND ANOTHER on 9 December 2025
JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW WRIT - A No. - 13796 of 2025 Court No. - 7 HON'BLE MANISH MATHUR, J. 1. Heard Mr. Ram Kumar Singh, learned counsel for petitioner and learned State Counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite parties. 2. Present petition under Article 226 of Constitution of India
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
LUCKNOW
WRIT - A No. - 13796 of 2025
Court No. - 7
HON'BLE MANISH MATHUR, J.
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
1. Heard Mr. Ram Kumar Singh, learned counsel for petitioner and learned State Counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite parties.
2. Present petition under Article 226 of Constitution of India has been filed challenging order dated 15.06.2025 whereby petitioner has been transferred form Ayodhya to Sonbhadra. Also under challenge is order dated 06.11.2025 rejecting petitioner's representation.
3. Petitioner had earlier also filed Writ - A No.12053 of 2025 challenging order dated 15.06.2025 and the same was disposed of vide order dated 13.10.2025 directing opposite parties to consider petitioner's representation. It is in pursuance thereof that the impugned order dated 06.11.2025 has been passed.
4. It has been submitted that in pursuance of directions issued by this Court, petitioner had submitted a representation dated 17.10.2025 specifically taking two pleas that persons who have been posted in District since prior to petitioner and are continuing as such have been retained; and secondly that persons having medical issues have also been retained.
5. It is submitted that a perusal of impugned order will make it evident that there is absolutely no cogent consideration of aforesaid two grounds which had been taken by petitioner. Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Ram Kumar Singh Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C. Anil Kumar .....Petitioner(s) State Of U.P Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Of Finance Lko. And Another .....Respondent(s)
6. Learned State Counsel has been provided written instructions dated 05.12.2025, which are taken on record and as per which, it is submitted that petitioner's transfer has been effected due to fact that he has already spent 22 years in District Ayodhya as well as fact that he was not performing his duties in accordance with directions issued by superior authorities.
7. Upon consideration of submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties and perusal of material on record, it is evident that petitioner's earlier writ petition was disposed of vide order dated 13.10.2025 directing authority concerned to take a decision on his representation. In aforesaid representation, petitioner in paragraph-3 has specifically indicated names of five persons who have been posted in the District since prior to petitioner and had therefore spent more time than petitioner in the District but have not been transferred. In paragraph-7, he has also indicated names of persons who have been retained on ground of medical issues.
8. Upon perusal of order impugned, it is apparent that although aforesaid two facts have been noticed by authorities concerned but there is no deliberation as to why persons posted in the District since prior to petitioner have been retained while petitioner has been transferred. Similarly, the aspect of medical issues being faced by petitioner's mother has not been considered in light of grounds raised in representation.
9. The representation has been rejected primarily on ground that petitioner has spent 22 years in Ayodhya and is not performing his duties diligently.
10. Learned State Counsel has not been provided any instructions as to whether any enquiry was instituted against petitioner with regard to such allegations.
11. In view of such discussions made herein above, it is evident that the authority concerned has not disclosed reasons for rejecting petitioner's representation with regard to the two grounds raised by him. WRIA No. 13796 of 2025
12. In such circumstances, the impugned order dated 06.11.2025 is hereby quashed by issuance of a writ in the nature of Certiorari directing opposite party no.2 i.e. Director, Treasury, Uttar Pradesh, Lucknow to revisit petitioner's representation dated 17.10.2025 and pass appropriate orders particularly adverting to paragraphs 3 and 7 of aforesaid representation as also in light of recommendation made in favour of petitioner. Appropriate orders shall be passed within a period of two weeks from receipt of a certified copy of this order.
13. Resultantly, the petition succeeds and is allowed at the admission stage itself. Parties to bear their own costs. December 9, 2025 kvg/- WRIA No. 13796 of 2025
(Manish Mathur,J.) Digitally signed by :- GIREESAN KV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench