Dismissed

S.I. C.P P.N.O. No. 822431280 Paras Nath Singh Yadav and 4 Others v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Deptt. and 7 Others

Allahabad HC13 Jun 2022/3798/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court dismissed the writ petition filed by Sub-Inspectors challenging their transfer from Lucknow. It held that general officers' policies did not apply; instead, a specific police transfer policy mandated their relocation after six years of combined service, rendering the challengeWithout merit.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed as lacking merit; transfer order upheld.

S.I. C.P P.N.O. No. 822431280 Paras Nath Singh… — Service and Employment | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 7

¶2

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 3798 of 2022

¶3

Petitioner :- S.I. C.P P.N.O. No. 822431280 Paras Nath Singh Yadav And 4 Others Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Deptt. And 7 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Vyas Narayan Shukla Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶4

Hon'ble Subhash Vidyarthi,J.

¶5

Heard Sri Vyas Narayan Shukla, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri Amitabh Rai, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the respondents.

¶6

By means of the instant petition, the petitioners have challenged the order dated 01.06.2022 passed by the Deputy Superintendent of Police (Establishment) whereby the petitioners alongwith 97 other Sub-Inspectors have been transferred from Lucknow to different places.

¶7

The main ground to challenge the transfer order is that petitioners have not completed two years at their present places of postings and all the petitioners are about to retire within a period of two years and as per the transfer policy dated 29.03.2018 issued by the State Government laying down the policy for transfer of government officers/employees, an officer/employee who is about to retire within a period of two years, will be considered for being posted in the district of his choice other than the Home District.

¶8

On the basis of written instructions received, the learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel has opposed the aforesaid prayer of the petitioners and has submitted that the transfer policy dated 29.03.2018 issued by the State Government is not applicable to the Sub-Inspectors and a separate policy for their transfer has been laid down by means of an order dated 14.01.2022 issued by the Directorate General of Police, Uttar Pradesh. The aforesaid transfer policy inter alia provides that a Sub-Inspector in Civil Police who has completed six years has to be transferred. He has further submitted that in the guidelines issued by means of a letter dated 13.12.2014, it was clarified that while making transfer of a Sub-Inspector, the service rendered by the concerned person as Head Constable and Constable at a place will also be taken into consideration.

¶9

All the petitioners have completed the period of six years in

¶10

Lucknow district, and therefore, they have been transferred in accordance with the provisions contained in the transfer policy applicable to the Sub-Inspectors in the State of Uttar Pradesh. There is no provision in the transfer policy applicable to SubInspectors which provides for their transfer at a place of their choice in case they are about to retire within a period of two years.

¶11

Keeping in view the aforesaid submissions, I am satisfied that the petitioners have no claim to seek transfer at their desired place as per provisions contained in the transfer policy of the government officers/employees issued by the State Government on 29.03.2018. The petitioners being Sub-Inspector in Civil Police, are covered by the Transfer Policy dated 14.01.2022 issued by the Directorate General of Police Uttar Pradesh, which contains a provision for transfer of Sub-Inspectors who have completed six years in a District/Commissionerate. As per provisions contained in the letter dated 13.12.2014 issued by the Directorate General of Police, Uttar Pradesh, while calculating the period of six years, the period spent at a place by the employee as a Head Constable and Constable shall also be taken into consideration. Therefore, all the petitioners have been transferred out of Lucknow for the reason that they have completed aforesaid period mentioned in the transfer policy.

¶12

I find no illegality in the transfer order dated 01.06.2022 which may warrant an interference by this Court in exercise of discretionary writ jurisdiction.

¶13

The writ petition lacks merit and it is accordingly, dismissed.

¶14

Order Date :- 13.6.2022/A.K.T.

¶15

Digitally signed by ASHOK KUMAR TRIPATHI Date: 2022.06.14 14:58:29 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

S.I. C.P P.N.O. No. 822431280 Paras Nath Singh Yadav and 4 Others v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Deptt. and 7 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

S.I. C.P P.N.O. No. 822431280 Paras Nath Singh Yadav and 4 Others v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Deptt. and 7 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Dr. Shiv Poojan Awasthi and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Medical and Health Deptt. and 4 Others

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

Raj Kumar Vs Union of India Thru. Secy. Ministry of Railway Northeastern Railway and 3 Others

Daroga Vs U.P Sahkari Gram Vikas Bank Ltd.Lko. and Another

Ravindra Kumar Singh Vs State of U.P Thru. Collector Sultanpur and 3 Others

Mohd. Aslam Vs State of U.P Thru. the Prin. Secy. Transport Deptt. Lko. and 4 Others