Uma Devi Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko. and 4 Others

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:84580

¶2

Court No. - 6

¶3

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 12173 of 2024

¶4

Petitioner :- Uma Devi

¶5

Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. Of Home Lko. And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- M.P. Raju Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶6

Hon'ble Alok Mathur,J.

¶7

Heard Sri M.P. Raju, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Standing Counsel for the respondents.

¶8

It has been submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that petitioner is working on the post of Lady Head Constable in Crime Branch at District Lucknow and by means of order dated 29.06.2024, she has been transferred from Lucknow Commissionerate to Lucknow Range, meaning thereby she can be posted to any of the districts falling under Lucknow Range.

¶9

It is next submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that daughter of petitioner is three years old and is suffering from Attention Deficit / Hyper Activity Disorder (ADHD) for which she is receiving treatment at Nature's Clinic Speech & Hearing Care Center, Lucknow.

¶10

According to the petitioner in case any of the children suffer from any disability as per Transfer Policy of the State Government, she can be posted at any place where medical facilities are available and accordingly had moved an application before respondent no. 5 for staying her transfer order till conclusion of her daughter's treatment. It is on the representation of the petitioner that order dated 21.11.2024 whereby transfer order of the petitioner was stayed for two months to enable the petitioner to see that treatment of her daughter is completed. Before the authority the petitioner has stated that treatment would be over within next two months and on the basis of statement made by the petitioner, order dated 21.11.2024 was passed. Immediately after passing of the said order present writ petition has been filed challenging the order of transfer dated 29.06.2024 and also praying for direction to the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for transferring her from Police Commissionerate Lucknow to CBCID, Lucknow or to the Police Recruitment Board, Lucknow.

¶11

Learned Standing Counsel on the other hand has opposed the writ petition. He has submitted that in the present case it cannot be said that respondents have acted arbitrarily inasmuch as petitioner's grievance has been duly redressed by order dated 21.11.2024 passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Police (Crime), Police Commissionerate, Lucknow by staying the order of transfer on the ground so as to enable the petitioner to complete medical treatment of her daughter. He has further submitted that said period would be completed some time in the month of January, 2025 and no such prayer was made before the authority concerned.

¶12

After hearing rival contentions, this Court has noticed that daughter of petitioner is suffering from ADHD disorder and she is three years old and under treatment at Lucknow. Respondent no. 5 considered the grievance of petitioner and has passed order staying her transfer for two months to enable the petitioner to conclude such medical treatment. Said treatment is underway and the petitioner has more than one and half months stay left at Lucknow before she has to join at her transferred place of posting.

¶13

Considering the fact that the authority himself has sympathetically passed order dated 21.11.2024 and has stated the transfer order for two months, this Court do not find this a fit case for exercising its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, staying the transfer order. In any view of the matter, transfer of the petitioner has been stayed till some time in January, 2025.

¶14

Accordingly, this Court is not inclined to interfere in the matter at this stage.

¶15

However, in case petitioner is able to demonstrate that further treatment is required and it is necessary for the petitioner to stay at Lucknow, then liberty is granted to her to move another suitable representation before respondent no. 5 in this regard. In case respondent no. 5 - Deputy Commissioner of Police (Crime), Police Commissionerate, Lucknow is satisfied that petitioner is required to stay at Lucknow, he may pass appropriate orders in this regard.

¶16

With above directions the writ petition stands disposed of .

¶17

Order Date :- 17.12.2024/A. Verma

¶18

(Alok Mathur, J.)

¶19

Digitally signed by :- ANURAG VERMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Uma Devi v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko. and 4 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Uma Devi v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko. and 4 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Abhinesh Kumar Bajpai Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Medical and Health Deptt. Lko. and 3 Others

Waseem Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Govt. Lko.

Shabeena Khan Vs State of U.P. Thru. Chief Addl. Ecy. Deptt. of Environment Forests and Wildlife and Another

Rajendra Kumar Rawat Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Finance Lko. and 2 Others

Pyare Lal Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy./Prin. Secy. Revenue Lko. and 5 Others

Om Prakash Vs Sr. Div. Electrical Egineer /G/G Northern Railway Office Lko.