Amitava Lala, J. - (1.) This special appeal has been filed by the Appellant challenging the order of the learned Single Judge dated 06th October, 2010 by saying that no personal hearing has been afforded to the Appellant by the appropriate authority before transferring him from Uttar Pradesh Cadre to the Uttaranchal Cadre. We find from the order impugned that the Court has considered the order passed by learned Single Judge in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 4624 of 2009 (Sanjay Kumar Singh and Anr. v/s. State of Uttar Pradesh and Ors. Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 4624 of 2009) alongwith connected matters as well as the writ petition No. 13652 of 2009 (Mahendra Singh v/s. State of U.P. writ petition No. 13652 of 2009). Virtually the Court came to the conclusion on the basis of the judgment delivered in Writ Petition No. 52014 of 2009 (Pradeep Kumar Singh v/s. Union of India and Ors. Writ Petition No. 52014 of 2009). According to the learned Single Judge, the earlier writ petitions were dismissed by the Division Bench of this Court. However, Court has taken the ultimate view as follows: 6. Having heard Sri Vijay Gautam, learned Counsel for the petitioner as well as Sri Piyush Shukla, learned Standing Counsel for the State, I find that after considering the matter involving validity of cadre allocation orders of Government of India in detail, this Court (Hon'ble Sunil Ambwani,J.) passed a detailed order on 30.5.2009 and dismissed all the writ petitions led by Sanjay Kumar Singh and Ors. (supra). The Special Leave to appeal filed against Sanjay Kumar Singh's judgment, was admitted by a Division Bench of this Court on 08.9.2009, but the interim order was refused. Where against special appeal was filed wherein order of status -quo was passed. But later on against the said judgment dated 30.7.2009 another Special appeal came up for consideration before a Division Bench and was decided finally on 9.10.2009, which order confirm the judgment of Single judge passed in the case of Sanjay Kumar Singh (supra). The Special appeal was dismissed on 9.10.2009. 7. Following these two judgments, this Court (myself) decided another Writ Petition No. 52014 of 2009 Pradeep Kumar Singh (supra) on 28.10.2009, wherein some other arguments were also considered and negated. All the grounds taken in this writ petition are covered by the aforesaid decision in Sanjay Kumar Singh (supra), Mahendra Kumar Singh (supra) and Pradeep Kumar Singh (supra). Learned Counsel for the Petitioner could not make any submission to persuade this Court to take a different view. In view of the above, writ petition lack merit, is dismissed. No order as to costs.
(2.) Mr.C.B. Yadav, learned Senior Counsel, appearing in support of the Appellant, contended before us that there is a genuine hardship on the part of the Appellant and as per the circular of the State of Uttar Pradesh dated 15.07.2002 personal hearing has to be given in respect of genuine hardship. The Appellant's case for consideration of cause is as follows: 5. That in 1992 Petitioner was while posted in Haldwani District Nainital (Now in Uttaranchal) one hardened notorious criminal and mafia namely Mahendra Singh alias Munna was murdered on ITI gate Haldwani on 31.03.1992 and in this murder case the real younger brother of Petitioner was named as accused in F.I.R. due to this fact petitioner and his family came in danger of life as the deceased Munna was hardened criminal and was wanted in dozen of hyeneous crime in District Nainital as the family member of deceased became active to finish Petitioner and his family the Petitioner made request for transfer out of zone where upon the Petitioner was transferred vide order dated 06.04.1992 and attached to Lucknow head quarter. The true copy of transfer order dated 06.04.1992 is being filed as Annexure No. 3 to this writ petition. 6. That thereafter petitioner was transferred to Faizabad and some month after that he was posted as Assistant Conservator of forest/S.D.O. Social forestry Division Basti, District Basti till date.
(3.) About consideration of cause he has made the case in paragraph Nos. 20, 21 and 22 of the writ petition that he has made representations but he is not aware of the fate thereof.;