Disposed

Const. No. 927040082 Shailendra Pratap Singh v. Union of India Thru. Ministry of Home Affairs and 3 Others

Allahabad HC9 Jun 2022/3775/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court considered a writ petition challenging orders relieving the petitioner to join a transferred post under the Indo Tibetan Border Police Force. The court found no warrant for interference and directed the petitioner to seek a fresh representation with the authority.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition is disposed of; the petitioner is directed to submit a fresh representation to the Directorate General.

Const. No. 927040082 Shailendra Pratap Singh Vs… — Service and Employment | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 7

¶2

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 3775 of 2022

¶3

Petitioner :- Const. No. 927040082 Shailendra Pratap Singh Respondent :- Union Of India Thru. Ministry Of Home Affairs And 3 Others

¶4

Counsel for Petitioner :- Piyush Pathak Counsel for Respondent :- A.S.G.I.

¶5

Hon'ble Subhash Vidyarthi,J.

¶6

Heard Sri Piyush Pathak, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Raj Kumar singh, learned counsel for the opposite parties.

¶7

By means of this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged an Office Memorandum dated 05.05.2022 issued by the Deputy Inspector General (Personnel), Headquarter Eastern Frontier, Indo Tibetan Border Police Force, Aliganj, Lucknow, whereby the petitioner had been ordered to be relieved to enable him to join at the transferred post and he has also challenged an Office Order dated 31.05.2022 passed by the Deputy Inspector General (Personnel), Headquarter Eastern Frontier, Indo Tibetan Border Police Force, whereby the petitioner has been order to be relieved.

¶8

Sri Raj Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the opposite parties submits that the petitioner had been transferred by means of an order dated 27.08.2021, which was challenged by the petitioner by filing Writ Petition No. 16927 of 2021. The aforesaid Writ Petition had been disposed off by an order dated 06-08-2021 whereby the order dated 28.07.2021 was quashed and a liberty was given to the respondent no.2 i.e. the Director General, ITB Police Force to consider the claim of the petitioner and to pass a fresh order in accordance with the law.

¶9

After passing of the aforesaid order on 02.09.2021, a fresh order was passed by the Directorate General, ITB Police Force

¶10

after sympathetically considering the representation of the petitioner in light of the medical documents produced by him about his illness and his transfer order was deferred till 31.05.2022.

¶11

It is in furtherance of the aforesaid order dated 02.09.2021 passed by the Directorate General, ITB Police Force that the Office Memorandum dated 05.05.2022 has been issued for relieving the petitioner on 01.06.2022 i.e. immediately after 31.05.2022 till which date, his transfer had been deferred by the Directorate General, ITB Police Force.

¶12

Sri Raj Kumar Singh has stated that the Office Memorandum dated 05.05.2022 is not the transfer order but it is a relieving order passed in furtherance of the order dated 02.09.2021 passed by the Directorate General, ITB Police Force. Therefore, the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the Office Memorandum dated 05.05.2022 has been issued without jurisdiction, is without force.

¶13

The learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn attention of the Court to the standing order no.2 of 2020 issued by the Directorate General, ITB Police Force on 15.10.2020, whereby general guideline for posting / transfer of ITBP personnel has been laid down.

¶14

Clause- 1 (b) of the aforesaid guidelines categorically states that according to the provision of Section 7 of the ITBP Act 1992, a member of the Force is liable to serve at any place within and outside India. The aforesaid guideline categorically states that the tenure and conditions and of transfer / posting prescribed in the standing order may not be construed as binding instructions but as general guidelines as the same can be increased or curtailed on various administrative and operational grounds by

¶15

Directorate General, ITB Police Force.

¶16

Having carefully considered the aforesaid facts as well as the guidelines, I find that the Office Memorandum dated 05.05.2022 and the Office Order dated 31.05.2022 which have been challenged by the petitioner so as to warrant any interference by this Court.

¶17

The learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn attention of the Court towards clause-6 (a) (iii) of the aforesaid guidelines, which provides that transfer on compassionate ground will be done in relaxation of the general norms on the ground of education of children, who are studying in Class-IX and XI and are about to appear in the Board examination. He has further submitted that the petitioner's son has passed Class-XI in Session 2021-22 and he will be appearing in the Board examinations in the year 2023. He has further stated that the petitioner has suffered with an injury on 11.10.2016 for which his treatment is still continuing in Vivekanand Polyclinic and Institute of Medical Sciences, Lucknow.

¶18

Keeping in view the aforesaid facts, it is provided that the petitioner may make a fresh representation to the Directorate General, ITB Police Force within a period of 5 days from raising all his grievances and the authority concerned is expected to take a decision on the representation of the petitioner sympathetically with expedition say within a period of two weeks.

¶19

With the aforesaid observations, the instant writ petition stands disposed of.

¶20

Order Date :- 9.6.2022 Ashish pd.

¶21

Digitally signed by ASHISH PRASAD Date: 2022.06.11 16:23:13 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Const. No. 927040082 Shailendra Pratap Singh v. Union of India Thru. Ministry of Home Affairs and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Const. No. 927040082 Shailendra Pratap Singh v. Union of India Thru. Ministry of Home Affairs and 3 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

Dileep Kumar Vs U.P. State Electricity Board Lko. Thru. Its Chairman Shankti Bhawan Lko. and 3 Others

Prithvi Raj @ Pirthi Raj Vs Jai Singh and 4 Others

Devendra Kumar Gupta Vs State of U.P. through Adiitional Chief Secretary, Nagar Vikas Vibhag and Others

Smt. Neelam Dwivedi Vs State of U.P. Thru. Its Prin. Secy. Basic Education Lko. and 3 Others

Mrityunjai Kumar Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Namami Gange Evam Gramin Jalapurti ANUBHAG-4 and 2 Others

Shiv Sagar Vs State of U.P. Thru. the Secy. Co-Operative Lko. and 2 Others