The High Court disposed of the writ petition challenging a delayed transfer and relieving order, applying the established principle that such orders passed without cogent justification after significant delay are legally unsustainable.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Court No. - 6
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 5770 of 2021
Petitioner :- Sanjeev Kumar Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Irfan Ahmad Malik Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Pankaj Bhatia,J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the State respondents.
The present writ petition has been filed alleging that a transfer was passed on 23.6.2014 transferring the petitioner from District Shamli to District Saharanpur. However, in terms of the said order, the actual relieving order was passed on 25.3.2021. This Court had entertained the writ petition and granted interim protection to the petitioner on 13.5.2021. However, a liberty was granted to the respondents to pass fresh order of transfer in accordance with the prevalent policy.
Counsel for the petitioner argues that the detailed relieving order is wholly arbitrary and relies on the judgement of this Court dated 12.5.2017 in Service Single no. 10584 of 2017 to the following effect :
"Heard learned Counsel for petitioners and the learned Standing Counsel.
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.
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.
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.
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.
It is open for the opposite parties to transfer the petitioners, if exigency of service so requires, in accordance with law.
With the aforesaid observations/directions, the writ petition is disposed of finally ."
He further relies upon the judgement of this Court dated 9.7.2020 passed in Writ-A No. 4492 of 2020 in which similar question was involved and the Court relying upon the earlier judgement dated 12.5.2017 (extracted above) disposed of the writ petition.
Accordingly, the writ petition is also disposed of in the light of the judgement and order dated 12.5.2017 passed in Service Single No. 10584 of 2017, as extracted above.
Order Date :- 23.7.2021 nd
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the writ petition challenging the delayed transfer and relieving order should be disposed of in light of the established precedent regarding unjustified delay.
Whether the impugned relieving order passed after a considerable long delay without cogent reasons is legally sustainable.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
service single no. 10584 of 2017Relied on¶7
Service Single no. 10584 of 2017
Writ-A No. 4492 of 2020Relied on¶16
Writ-A No. 4492 of 2020
Sanjeev Kumar
State Of U.P.
2 Others
Pankaj Bhatia
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
