Quashed

Mohd. Tasarif v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. of Home, Lucknow and 5 Others

Allahabad HC19 Jan 2024/384/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This High Court quashed an impugned transfer order dated 19.05.2023 issued against the petitioner, an Additional Superintendent of Police, transferring him from Lucknow to Varanasi Commissionerate. Relying on judicial precedents regarding delays in relieving transferred officers, the Court disposed of the petition to quash the order while granting liberty to the opposite parties to pass a fresh tr

What did the court decide?

Quashing of the transfer order dated 19.05.2023 with liberty to pass a fresh order if exigency of service requires.

Mohd. Tasarif Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief… — Service and Employment | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:5545

¶2

Court No. - 18

¶3

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 384 of 2024

¶4

Petitioner :- Mohd. Tasarif Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. Of Home, Lucknow And 5 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Mohd. Mansoor,Mohammad Danish

¶5

Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶6

Hon'ble Manish Kumar,J.

¶7

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

¶8

Present writ petition has been preferred for quashing of the impugned transfer order dated 19.05.2023 passed by respondent no. 5- Additional Superintendent of Police, Establishment, HQ, Lucknow, U.P. as far as it is related to the petitioner by which the petitioner has been transferred from Lucknow Commissionerate to Varanasi Commissionerate.

¶9

It is further submitted that on 06.01.2024, an order has been issued for relieving of the transferred police personnel.

¶10

It is further submitted that in 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.

¶11

Learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on the judgment and orders of this Court dated 02.01.2020 and 13.12.2023 passed in Writ A Nos. 36661 of 2019 and 9469 of 2023 respectively wherein similar situated persons have approached this Court.

¶12

This Court has also considered this issue 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

¶15

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.

¶16

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

¶17

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

¶18

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

¶19

Order Date :- 19.1.2024 Nitesh

¶20

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

Mohd. Tasarif v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. of Home, Lucknow and 5 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mohd. Tasarif v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. of Home, Lucknow and 5 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Rakesh Kumar Singh Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Medical Health/Family Welfare, U.P. Lucknow and 2 Others

Subhash Singh Alias Subhash Singh Panwar Pno. No. 872650789 Vs State of U.P. Thru. the Prin. Secy. Home, Govt. of U.P. Lucknow and 3 Others

Girish Kumar Singh Vs State of U.P. through Secy. Deptt. of Forest Lko. and Ors.

Jai Dev Raheja Vs Union of India Thru. Secy. Deptt. of Health and Family Welfare New Delhi and Another

Arvind Kumar Yadav Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Civil Sectt. Lok Bhawan Lko and 2 Others

Anil Kumar Shukla Vs Union of India Thru. Its Ministry of Housing and Urban Affairs and 2 Others