Disposed

Rahul Kumar Verma and 2 Others v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. Home Lko and 2 Others

Allahabad HC15 Jul 2024/5209/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Police personnel challenged a transfer-related relieving order. The court did not examine merits, disposed of the writ petition at admission stage with liberty to file a fresh representation to the Deputy Inspector General of Police (Establishment), which must be decided by reasoned order within a month.

What did the court decide?

Liberty to prefer fresh representation within 10 days; authority directed to decide it by speaking order within one month.

Rahul Kumar Verma and 2 Others Vs State of U.P… — Service and Employment | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:47729

¶2

Court No. - 4

¶3

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 5209 of 2024

¶4

Petitioner :- Rahul Kumar Verma And 2 Others Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. Home Lko And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- M.P. Raju Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶5

Hon'ble Rajesh Singh Chauhan,J.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and Shri R.P.S. Chauhan, learned Additional C.S.C. for the State-respondents.

¶7

By means of this petition, the petitioners have prayed following main relief(s):-

¶8

"(i) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Certiorari quashing the impugned relieving order dated 24.06.2024 passed by opposite party No. 2 so far as it relates to the petitioners as contained in Annexure No. 1 to this writ petition.

¶9

(ii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus commanding the opposite parties to allow the petitioners to work on present place of posting and pay them salary each and every month regularly."

¶10

At the very outset, Shri Chauhan has informed the Court, on the basis of instructions, that the petitioners have been relieved pursuant to the transfer order.

¶11

However, learned counsel for the petitioners has stated that the petitioners have preferred representation to the authority concerned but such representation has not been considered, therefore, they may be given liberty to prefer a fresh representation and a direction may be issued to dispose of the same with expedition.

¶12

Learned Additional C.S.C. has no objection if a direction for

¶13

disposal of the representation is issued.

¶14

Therefore, without entering into merits of the issue, this writ petition is disposed of finally at the admission stage giving liberty to the petitioners to prefer a fresh representation to the opposite party no. 2 i.e., Deputy Inspector General of Police (Establishment), U.P., Lucknow taking all pleas and grounds which are available to them enclosing therewith copies of relevant documents and their earlier representations which are necessary for disposal of the representation, within a period of 10 days from today and if such representation is preferred by the petitioners within aforesaid period, the authority concerned shall consider and decide the same strictly, by speaking and reasoned order in accordance with law after affording an opportunity of hearing to the parties concerned, if it is so required, with expedition, preferably, within a period of one month from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order and the decision thereof shall be intimated to the petitioners forthwith.

¶15

Order Date :- 15.7.2024 Shravan

¶16

[Rajesh Singh Chauhan,J.]

¶17

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

Rahul Kumar Verma and 2 Others v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. Home Lko and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rahul Kumar Verma and 2 Others v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. Home 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Kailash Chandra Baranwal Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Medical Health and Family Welfare, Lko. and 3 Others

Gaurav Mishra Vs Union of India Thru. Central Bureau of Narcotics, Lucknow

Ratnakar Tiwari Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Medical Health and Family Welfare, Lko. and Others

Ramesh Kumar vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Smt. Anjali Kumari vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Excise Civil Sectt. Lko and 4 Others

Anil Kumar Srivastava vs Consolidation Commissioner Lko. and 4 Others