Quashed

Km. Alka v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Allahabad HC26 May 2022WRIA/8165/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition challenged delayed transfer and relieving orders against a police constable. The court quashed the orders due to a delay of over three and a half years, citing precedent, while reserving the right to transfer if exigency arises.

What did the court decide?

The impugned transfer order dated 25.09.2018 and the consequential relieving order dated 10.06.2020 are quashed.

Km. Alka Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others — Service and Employment | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 34

¶2

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 8165 of 2022

¶3

Petitioner :- Km. Alka Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Raju Singh,Prathamesh Upadhyay Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶4

Hon'ble Rajeev Misra,J.

¶5

Heard Mr. Prathamesh Upadhyay, learned counsel for petitioner and learned Standing Counsel representing respondents 1 to 4.

¶6

Challenge in this writ petition is to the transfer order dated 25.09.2018 passed by respondent 2 Director General of Police, Police Headquarters, U.P., Lucknow as well as order dated 10.06.2020 passed by respondent 4 Senior Superintendent of Police, District Bulandshahr (Annexures 1 and 2 to the writ petition).

¶7

Learned counsel for petitioner contends that the Police Establishment Board in it's meeting held on 25.09.2018 took a decision to transfer several Constables. Pursuant to aforesaid decision, the Headquarters, Director General of Police, U.P. passed the consequential order dated 25.9.2018, whereby petitioner, who is a lady Constable, has been transferred from Bulandshahr to Agra. However, pursuant to the aforesaid order dated 25.09.2018, the Senior Superintendent of Police, Bulandshahr has passed the consequential order only on 10.06.2020 directing therein that such Police Constables, who stand transferred, be relieved of their duties immediately.

¶8

Learned counsel for petitioner then contends that petitioner has not yet been relieved of her duties from Bulandshar, as she is on child care leave.

¶9

He has then invited the attention of the Court to the order dated 2.5.2019 passed in Writ A No. 6810 of 2019 (Mohan Lal Vs. State of U.P. and 4 others), which reads as under:-

¶10

"The transfer order dated 16.05.2018 is being sought to be given effect to by passing a relieving order dated 16.04.2019. The petitioner is seeking quashing of both the orders on the grounds that the petitioner did not make any request for stay of his transfer. The respondent authorities did not relieve the petitioner and as such he could not join the new place of posting. There is no justification for giving effect to the transfer order after a period of approximately eleven months.

¶11

Learned Standing Counsel does not dispute to the position that the

¶12

petitioner has been transferred with immediate effect vide order dated 16.05.2018 pursuant to the decision taken by the Police Establishment Board dated 16.05.2018 but he has not been relieved since then.

¶13

In the similar fact and circumstance, this Court in Service Single No.22320 of 2017 (Virendra Pal Singh Vs. State of U.P. & others) has disposed of the writ petition with the following observations:-

¶14

"An order of transfer has been passed on 11.5.2016, which is being given effect to by passing relieving order dated 23.7.2017.

¶15

Learned counsel for the parties do not dispute that facts of the present petition are identical to one occurring in Service Single No.10584 of 2017, which has been disposed of on 12.5.2017. The order dated 12.5.2017 is extracted herein below:-

¶16

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

¶17

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.

¶18

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.

¶19

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.

¶20

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.

¶21

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

¶22

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

¶23

Since the issue involved in the present matter is identical, the present writ petition is also disposed of on the same terms."

¶24

This Court is of the view that the petitioner herein is also entitled for the same relief.

¶25

The writ petition is disposed of on the same terms."

¶26

On the aforesaid premise, learned counsel for petitioner

¶27

contends that case of petitioner is similar and identical to the case of petitioner in aforementioned writ petition. He, therefore, contends that similar protection be extended to the petitioner also.

¶28

Per contra, the learned Standing Counsel representing respondents has opposed the present writ petition. He submits that petitioner is holding a transferable post. Moreover, transfer is an incidence of service. Nothing has been brought on record to show that the transfer order impugned in present writ petition is contrary to the Rules. No mala fide has been alleged either. He, therefore, submits that present writ petition is liable to be dismissed.

¶29

Having heard learned counsel for petitioner, learned Standing Counsel representing respondents and upon perusal of record, this Court finds that it is an undisputed fact that the transfer order against petitioner was passed on 25.09.2018. Petitioner has not yet been relieved of her duties from her place of posting. No justifiable reason exists to implement the transfer order dated 25.09.2018 i.e. after more than 3 years and 6 months.

¶30

In view of above, the impugned transfer order dated 25.09.2018 passed by the respondent 2 Director General of Police, Headquarters, U.P. Lucknow (Annexure 1 to the writ petition) and the consequential order dated 10.6.2020 passed by respondent 4 Senior Superintendent of Police, Bulandshahr (Annexure 2 to the writ petition) are unsustainable and therefore liable to be quashed.

¶31

Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed.

¶32

The impugned transfer order dated 25.09.2018 passed by the respondent 2 Director General of Police, Headquarters, U.P. Lucknow (Annexure 1 to the writ petition) and the consequential order dated 10.6.2020 passed by respondent 4 Senior Superintendent of Police, Bulandshahr (Annexure 2 to the writ petition) are unsustainable are, hereby, quashed.

¶33

However, it shall be open for the respondents to pass a fresh order of transfer, if there be any administrative exigency.

¶34

Cost made easy.

¶35

Order Date :- 26.5.2022 HSM

¶36

Digitally signed by HARI SHANKER MISHRA Date: 2022.05.31 20:06:02 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Km. Alka v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Km. Alka v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Aman Kumar Mishra Vs Union of India and 6 Others

Abhimanyu Lal Srivastava Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Vishwajit Kumar Vs Union of India and 3 Others

Pramod Vs State of U.P.

Sanjeev Kumar Vs State of U.P. and Another

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