Disposed

Chetan Kumar Tyagi v. State of U P and 2 Others

Allahabad HC20 Oct 2020WRIA/8781/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition seeking faster consideration of a representation for transfer on compassionate grounds due to domestic problems, the High Court issued a mandamus directing the Director General of Police to decide the matter by a speaking order within three months instead of exchanging pleadings.

What did the court decide?

Granted a mandamus directing the Director General of Police (Establishment) to decide the representation for transfer by a speaking order within three months.

Chetan Kumar Tyagi Vs State of U P and 2 Others — Service and Employment | Allahabad HC (2020)

¶1

Court No. - 83

¶2

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 8781 of 2020 Petitioner :- Chetan Kumar Tyagi Respondent :- State Of U P And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Ashish Kumar Ojha Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶3

Hon'ble Ajay Bhanot,J.

¶4

Sri Ashish Kumar Ojha, learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner has made an application for transfer from Moradabad to Meerut, or any place in the vicinity thereof, on the foot of certain domestic problems. He has made a representation in this regard. The representation has not been decided till date.

¶5

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that transfer on compassionate grounds are guided by the Police Headquarters communication dated 02.03.2012. The case of the petitioner is covered by the aforesaid communication dated 02.03.2012.

¶6

The only prayer made by Sri Ashish Kumar Ojha, learned counsel for the petitioner is that the case of the petitioner for transfer may be considered within a stipulated period of time.

¶7

Per contra, learned Standing Counsel submits that applications for transfer on compassionate grounds have to be considered in light of the communication dated 02.03.20212 by the competent authority.

¶8

Learned counsel for both the parties agree that no useful purpose will be served by exchanging the pleadings and keeping this writ petition pending before this Court.

¶9

Without going into the merits of the case, the matter is remitted to the respondent No.2- Director General of Police (Establishment), U.P. Police Headquarter, Lucknow.

¶10

A writ in the nature of mandamus is issued commanding the respondent No.2- Director General of Police (Establishment), U.P. Police Headquarters, Lucknow to execute the following direction :

¶11

The respondent No.2- Director General of Police (Establishment), U.P. Police Headquarters, Lucknow shall decide the representation of the petitioner for transfer by a speaking order in accordance with law, preferably within a period of three months from the date of production of a computer generated copy of this order, downloaded from the official website of the High Court Allahabad alongwith a copy of the representation as aforesaid and supporting documents, if any.

¶12

The computer generated copy of such order shall be self attested by the counsel of the party concerned and the Authority/Official shall verify the authenticity of such computerized copy of the order from the official website of High Court Allahabad and shall make a declaration of such verification in writing.

¶13

With the aforesaid direction, the writ petition is disposed of. Order Date :- 20.10.2020 Pravin

Chetan Kumar Tyagi v. State of U P and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Chetan Kumar Tyagi v. State of U P and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mohd. Irfan Khan Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Chunkawan Prasad Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Dhramendra Kumar Upadhyaya Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Shanti Devi Vs State of U.P. and 5 Others

Girish Chandra Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Ashok Chaudhary Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others