Sartaj Mishra Pno. No. 932310055 Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home and Ors.

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:8680

Court No. - 6

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 14219 of 2021

Petitioner :- Sartaj Mishra Pno. No. 932310055 Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home And Ors. Counsel for Petitioner :- Amrendra Nath Tripathi,Jitendra Kumar Verma,Om Prakash Misra Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶5

Hon'ble Alok Mathur,J.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for the State and perused the material available on record.

¶7

It has been submitted by learned counsel for petitioner that the petitioner was selected on the post of Sub Inspector in Civil Police after successful completion of training and was appointed on 28.02.2016 in District Balrampur. Subsequently, after completion of training, the petitioner was posted in the Local Intelligence Unit by means of order dated 15.02.2018.

¶8

The grievance raised in the present petition is that the petitioner seeks his transfer to the Traffic Police from Civil Police stating that the petitioner has completed the minimum qualifying service prescribed from the Civil Police to Traffic Police as per notification dated 14.12.2015 and the respondents have rejected the representation of the petitioner by means of impugned order dated 26.06.2021 stating that the petitioner has not completed six years in the Local Intelligence Unit and consequently, his services cannot be transferred to Traffic Police.

¶9

The State has filed counter affidavit where also in paragraph no. 4, it has been stated that the petitioner was transferred in Local Intelligence Unit, Gonda on his own request and joined

¶10

on 10.10.2017 and subsequently he was transferred to the Special Branch Gonda and he was transferred to Local Intelligence Unit, Balrampur on 15.02.2018. It has further been stated that by means of Government Order dated 19.06.2019, the period of posting at Local Intelligence Unit for the post of Sub Inspector has been fixed at six years and the petitioner has not completed six years service in the Intelligence Department and his case for transfer to Traffic Police has not been considered.

¶11

It is noticed that the same counter affidavit was filed on 11.08.2021when the petitioner had not completed the period of six years but admittedly considering the averments made in the paragraph no. 4 of the counter affidavit there is no doubt that the petitioner has completed six years in Local Intelligence Unit and the bar of serving in Local Intelligence Unit for six years as per Government Order dated 19.06.2019 would not operate against the petitioner seeking his transfer to the Traffic Police.

¶12

At this stage, learned counsel for petitioner submits that the respondents may be directed to consider the grievance of the petitioner again ignoring the impugned order dated 26.06.2021, inasmuch as, the petitioner the completed more than six years in Local Intelligence Unit.

¶13

Learned Standing Counsel does not oppose the prayer made by the petitioner.

¶14

In light of the above, with the consent of the parties, this petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondent no. 4 (Additional Director General of Police (Establishment), U.P., Lucknow) to consider the case of the petitioner for his transfer to Civil Police considering the fact that the petitioner has already completed six years of service in Local Intelligence Unit and his case for transfer to other wing of the Police

¶15

Department may be considered.

¶16

Let the consideration be made expeditiously say within a period of six weeks from the date a certified copy of this order is produced before the respondent no. 4.

¶17

With the aforesaid observations/directions, this petition is disposed of.

¶18

(Alok Mathur, J.)

¶19

Order Date :- 11.2.2025 Virendra

¶20

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

Sartaj Mishra Pno. No. 932310055 v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sartaj Mishra Pno. No. 932310055 v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mulhe Yadav Vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Forest Deptt. Lko and Another

Amit Kumar Singh Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Nagar Vikas ANUBHAG-4 Lko. and Another

Dr. Gauri Shanker Verma Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Medical Health and Family Welfare Lko. and 4 Others

Sagar Yadav Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy./Addl. Chief Secy. Edu. Lko. and 3 Others

Abhishek Singh Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Medical Health and Family Welfare Deptt. Lko. and 2 Others

Dharmeshwar Singh Srivastava Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. of Medical Health and Family Welfare and 4 Others