Quashed

Ram Kumar Roy v. State of U.P. and 4 Others

Allahabad HC3 Feb 2021WRIA/1528/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner challenged a late relieving order issued after a transfer from 2014-2015. The judge adopted the terms of Service Single No. 10584 of 2017. Finding the delay unexplained and the order unsustainable, the court quashed the relief order.

What did the court decide?

Impugned relieving order dated 23.04.2017 passed by the Senior Superintendent of Police, Hardoi is quashed.

Ram Kumar Roy Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others — Service and Employment | Allahabad HC (2021)

¶1

Court No. - 36

¶2

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 1528 of 2021

¶3

Petitioner :- Ram Kumar Roy Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Atipriya Gautam,Ishir Sripat,Vijay Gautam(Senior Adv.) Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶4

Hon'ble Mrs. Sunita Agarwal,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

¶6

The petitioner herein has been released after two years of the transfer order.

¶7

In the similar circumstances, many of the writ petitions had been entertained by this Court, one of such being Service Single No. 10584 of 2017, which has been disposed of on 12.5.2017.

¶8

Since the issue involved in the present matter is identical, the present writ petition is also disposed of on the same terms and conditions which is extracted herein below:-

¶9

"Heard learned Counsel for petitioners and the learned Standing Counsel.

¶10

Petitioners have challenged the impugned relieving order dated 23.04.2017 passed by the Senior Superintendent of Police, Hardoi (opposite party no.4) in pursuance to the transfer order passed on 09.07.2014,

¶11

It has been submitted by learned Counsel for petitioners that petitioners were transferred in the years 2014 and 2015 and now after lapse of 2-3 years, the aforesaid impugned relieving order has been passed by opposite party no.4.

¶12

Learned Standing Counsel, on the basis of the instructions, has admitted that definitely, the impugned reliving order has been passed too late and, therefore, fresh orders will be passed with respect to the petitioners and other persons who have not join their services in pursuance to the transfer order passed in the years 2014 and 2015.

¶13

Admittedly, there is a considerable long delay in passing the impugned and no cogent and justifiable reasons have been given for not acting upon the transfer order immediately when they were passed. Therefore, the impugned order passed in respect of petitioners is legally not sustainable and the same is hereby quashed.

¶14

It is open for the opposite parties to transfer the petitioners, if exigency of service so requires, in accordance with law.

¶15

With the aforesaid observations/directions, the writ petition is disposed of finally."

¶16

Disposed of .

¶17

Order Date :- 3.2.2021 Brijesh

Ram Kumar Roy v. State of U.P. and 4 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ram Kumar Roy v. State of U.P. and 4 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

Arun Kumar Singh Vs State of U.P. and 4 Ors.

Ramveer Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Dharmendra Kumar Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Kunwar Shashank Singh Vs Union of India and 3 Others

Pradeep Yadav Vs Union of India and 3 Others

Dheeraj Kumar Singh Vs Union of India and 3 Others