Dismissed

Ajab Singh v. State of U P and 3 Others

Allahabad HC10 Dec 2020WRIA/11415/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Single Judge dismissed a writ petition challenging a police constable's transfer and relieving order. The court held a six-month gap between transfer and relieving was not inordinate and did not apply precedents involving longer gaps or later stay orders.

What did the court decide?

Petition dismissed; petitioner permitted to make representation after joining transferred place.

Ajab Singh Vs State of U P and 3 Others — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Allahabad HC (2020)

¶1

Court No. - 72

¶2

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 11415 of 2020

¶3

Petitioner :- Ajab Singh Respondent :- State Of U P And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Vinod Kumar Mishra,Atipriya Gautam,Vijay Gautam(Senior Adv.) Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶4

Hon'ble Neeraj Tiwari,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the respondents.

¶6

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner was transferred from Aligarh to Kasganj vide order dated 20.02.2020 after completion of six years, but he was relieved on 13.08.2020 i.e. after around six months, therefore, this order is bad and liable to be set aside. In support of his contention, he has placed reliance of judgement of this Court passed in Writ A No. 10823 of 2020 (Asgar Ali Vs. State of U.P. and 4 others) dated 3.12.2020. He next submits that even otherwise, State Government vide order dated 12.5.2020 has stayed all the transfer during Covid-19 period, therefore, petitioner cannot be transferred.

¶7

Learned Standing Counsel has opposed the submission made by counsel for the petitioner and submitted that first of all judgement relied by counsel for the petitioner is not supporting the case of petitioner as in that case there is a gap of more than one year or two years in transfer order and relieving order whereas in the present case, it has been passed within six months, which cannot said to be inordinate delay. Further, Government Order dated 12.05.2020 would not be applicable for two reasons; first of all, transfer order was passed on 20.02.2020 i.e. prior to issuance of Government Order dated 12.05.2020 and secondly, State Government issued another order dated 3.7.2020 exempting the police department from the applicability of Government Order dated 12.05.2020, therefore, there is no illegality in the transfer order and relieving order.

¶8

I have considered the rival submissions raised by learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. Facts are not disputed. Petitioner was transfered on 20.02.2020 prior to issuance of Government Order dated 12.05.2020 and further relieved on 13.08.2020, therefore, judgement relied by counsel for the petitioner as well as Government Order dated 12.05.2020 is not applicable in the case of petitioner. The

¶9

judgement relied by counsel for the petitioner is only applicable in those matters in which relieving order was passed after more than one or two years. In Police Department, six months time for relieving of constable is not unreasonable as some time is required for making proper arrangement. Therefore, I found no illegality in the transfer order as well as relieving order.

¶10

Accordingly, petition lacks merit and is dismissed.

¶11

At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he may be permitted to make representation against the transfer order as well as relieving order.

¶12

Needless to say that there is no bar upon the petitioner to make representation, but his representation shall only be considered by the competent authority after submission of his joining at transferred place.

¶13

Order Date :- 10.12.2020 Arvind

Ajab Singh v. State of U P and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ajab Singh v. State of U P and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Pooja Singh Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Dr. Adarsh Srivastava Vs Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, N.A.C.O. New Delhi and 4 Others

Asgar Ali Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Satendra Singh Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Ram Kewal and Another Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Neha Shreya Vs Union of India and 3 Others