Allowed

Abhay Kumar Singh v. State of U.P Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Home Govt. Civil Secrt. Lko. and 2 Others

Allahabad HC17 Jan 2024/306/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged a long-delayed police transfer order violating relief timelines. Court relied on precedents regarding administrative delay and quashed the order, granting liberty to issue a fresh transfer decree.

What did the court decide?

Impugned transfer order dated 25.06.2022 was quashed with liberty to the opposite parties to pass a fresh order of transfer expeditiously.

Abhay Kumar Singh Vs State of U.P Thru. Prin. Secy… — Service and Employment | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:4520

¶2

Court No. - 18

¶3

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 306 of 2024

¶4

Petitioner :- Abhay Kumar Singh Respondent :- State Of U.P Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Home Govt. Civil Secrt. Lko. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Ravindra Kumar Singh,Devanshu Pratap Singh Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶5

Hon'ble Manish Kumar,J.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the State.

¶7

The present writ petition has been preferred for quashing of the impugned transfer order dated 25.06.2022 and to issue direction to the opposite parties to permit the petitioner to work at Police station Badosaray, District Barabanki on the post of Sub-Inspector.

¶8

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that by the impugned order dated 25.06.2022, the petitioner has been transferred from Barabanki to Ayodhya on the post of Head Constable, the post on which the petitioner was working in Barabanki. It is further submitted that after passing of the impugned order, the petitioner had not been relieved and he was promoted on the post of Sub Inspector by order dated 10.10.2023.

¶9

On the other hand, learned Standing Counsel has submitted that the petitioner has been relieved on 08.01.2024.

¶10

At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that as para no. 523 of U.P. Police Regulation, it has been provided that on receipt of an order of transfer of a subordinate ofÏcer to another district, the superintendent will arrange to relieve him of duties within ten days whereas in the present case, the relieving order has been passed after about eighteen months and the petitioner cannot join on the post of Head Constable, as per the transfer order.

¶11

Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the judgment and order of this Court dated 22.10.2020 passed in Writ Petition No. 16946 (S/S) of 2020 wherein similarly situated person has approached this Court.

¶12

This Court has also considered this issue raised in the Writ Petition No. 26462(S/S) of 2016 which has been decided on 11.11.2016 in the following terms:-

¶13

"Heard learned counsel for parties.

¶14

All the writ petitions have been clubbed together as the issue involved in these petitions is the same as to whether the authority was justified in relieving the petitioners after two years of the transfer order having been passed. The transfer order in all cases were passed in the year 2014, inspite of it, on account of administrative exigencies, the need for adequate number of personnel at Lucknow, which is the State capital, they could not be relieved.Normally considering the lapse of time the appropriate course for the respondents was to re-consider the matter and pass a fresh order of transfer as has been held by this Court in the judgment dated 6.07.2016 passed in writ petition no. 15148 (SS) of 2016 which has been followed by a co-ordinate bench in writ petition no. 15961 (SS) of 2016, therefore only for this reason while granting liberty to the respondents to have a fresh look at the matter and pass a fresh order expeditiously say within a period of 2 weeks, the impugned orders are hereby quashed.

¶15

All the writ petitions stand disposed of in the aforesaid terms."

¶16

Learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel could not dispute the aforesaid position.

¶17

Accordingly on the same analogy this writ petition is also disposed of quashing the impugned transfer order dated 25.06.2022, however, with liberty to the opposite parties to pass a fresh order of transfer, if exigency of service so requires, in accordance with law.

¶18

Order Date :- 17.1.2024 Nitesh

¶19

Digitally signed by :- NITESH KUMAR TEWARY High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Abhay Kumar Singh v. State of U.P Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Home Govt. Civil Secrt. Lko. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Abhay Kumar Singh v. State of U.P Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Home Govt. Civil Secrt. Lko. and 2 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

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Kamal Kishore Mishra Pno. No. 052660577 Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. of Home U.P. Lko. and 3 Others

Ramesh Kumar @ Ramesh Kumar Rana Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko. U.P. and 3 Others

Jag Jeewan Singh and 9 Others Vs State of U.P Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Irrigation and Water Resources Deptt. Lko. and 2 Others

Devendra Singh Vs Regional Director , Reserve Bank of India Lko. and 2 Others

Uma Kant Tiwari Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Ayush Anubhag Civil Secrtt. Govt. of Up Lko. and 4 Others

Manni Lal Razi Vs State of U.P. Thru Prin.Secy. Revenue Lucknow and Ors.