- (1.) WE have heard Sri Ashok Khare appearing for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel appears for the State -respondents. The petitioner is serving as an Assistant Engineer, in Dakshinanchal Vidyut Vitran Nigam Ltd. A vacancy was caused on 31.07.201, on the post of Assistant Engineer, Electricity Store Centre, Panki, Kanpur Dehat, on the retirement of one Sri P.N. Pandey. After seeking approval of a Committee appointed under the directions of the Apex Court in Public Interest Writ No. 79 of 1997 for transfers of the officers of the department, the petitioner was transferred from Electricity Distribution Sub -Division, Raina, Kanpur Dehat and was posted as Assistant Engineer, Electricity Store Centre, Panki, Kanpur Nagar, by the order of the Managing Director dated 07.12.2011. The Managing Director, has put the order of transfer dated 07.12.2011 in abeyance on 23.12.2011, without disclosing any reasons, giving rise to this writ petition.
(2.) IT is submitted that Sri Praveen Agarwal, Assistant Engineer, respondent No.7, holding the Additional Charge of Stores at Panki, apart from three additional charges has been allowed to continue, without making any arrangement for the petitioner. Sri Sandeep Srivastava was required to seek instructions. He has produced a letter of the Chief Engineer (Administration) dated 12.01.2012, in which it is stated as follows: In reference to your letter dated 09.01.2012, it is to bring to the kind notice of the Court that order dated 23.12.2011 was passed due to the fact that coming three months i.e. up to 31st March, 2012, were very important for the DVVNL from the revenue point of view and assembly elections which were also due for declaration by the Election Commission, in which the maintenance of reliable supply is very important. The shifting of the petitioner and giving his work to another SDO as additional charge, could hamper the supply position and revenue collection. It is submitted by Sri Srivastava that the charge will be given to the petitioner after close of the financial year.
(3.) SRI Ashok khare submits that the charge of store to the petitioner, has no direct connection with the supply position and revenue collection, and in any case there is no good reason to allow Sri Praveen Agarwal to continue to be in charge of store with two additional charges, and to keep the petitioner's posting in abeyance;