Deepak Kumar Sharma vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Heard Ms. Kanchan Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Pramod Kumar Srivastava, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel, who appears for State-respondents.

¶12

The case of the writ petitioner is that the writ petitioner is posted as SubInspector in Police in Gautam Buddh Nagar and he suffers from physical disability as the right hand of the writ petitioner has been amputated and there is shorting of the left hand, thus the writ petitioner permanent disability is 40%. On 15.06.2025, an order came to be passed by the Additional Superintendent of Police Establishment Nimitt DIG Police Karmik, U.P., Lucknow transferring the writ petitioner from Gautam Buddh Nagar to Agra.

¶13

Assailing the transfer order, the writ petitioner preferred Writ Petition No. 9940 of 2025 in which on 21.07.2025, the following orders have been passed:

¶14

"1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

¶15

2. By means of this petition filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India, the petitioner has assailed the order of transfer dated 15.06.2025 on the ground that the petitioner since is already suffering from severe disease of cancer on account of there being brain tumor and currently undergoing treatment at Gautam Buddh Nagar, hence he may be permitted to continue at least till the period he undergoes treatment.

¶16

3. It is further submitted that the petitioner is suffering from 40 percent physical disability for which Government Order by way of transfer policy dated 06.05.2025 prescribes retention of such employees at the station where they are currently posted.

¶17

4. Learned Standing Counsel has sought to defend the transfer order being general in

¶18

WRIA No. 15198 of 2025

¶19

2

¶20

nature but he is not averse to the petitioner's representation being decided in accordance with law.

¶21

5. In view of the above, I consider it appropriate to direct the petitioner to make a fresh comprehensive representation to the competent authority, namely, respondent no.4 through proper channel through respondent no.3 annexing therewith all the relevant material including the medical report and disability certificate within a period of four weeks and if he does so, the respondent concerned shall be deciding representation of the petitioner by retaining him at Gautam Buddh Nagar by means of reasoned and speaking order within a further period of two months.

¶22

6. Until the decision is taken by the authority concerned, the petitioner shall not be relieved pursuant to the transfer order dated 15.06.2025 and even if he has already been relieved, he shall be retained at Gautam Buddh Nagar and shall be paid salary."

¶23

Post passing of the said order, the writ petitioner represented the matter before the respondents on 02.08.2025 and now the impugned order has been passed on 29.08.2025 passed by the Additional Superintendent of Police Establishment Nimitt DIG Police Karmik, U.P., Lucknow. rejecting the claim of the writ petitioner.

¶24

Questioning the same, the writ petitioner has been filed the present writ petition.

¶25

This Court entertained the writ petition on 14.10.2025 requiring the learned Standing Counsel to obtain instructions.

¶26

Today instructions have been submitted by Shri Pramod Kumar Srivastava, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel of the third respondent dated 16.10.2025.

¶27

Learned counsel for the writ petitioner has submitted that first of all the transfer order dated 15.06.2025 could not have been passed, particularly, when there happens to be a specific provision in the transfer policy for the year 2025-26 dated 06.05.2025 being clause 5(4) wherein in case of any disability of the employee who is being sought to be transferred then he should not be transferred and further according to him in view of the mandate of this Court in the earlier spell of litigation the respondent was required to consider the said aspect but the order impugned has not been taken into account the said aspect of the matter which ought to have been adverted and a finding this way or that way ought to have been recorded. She submits that the impugned order cannot be sustained and they are liable

¶28

WRIA No. 15198 of 2025

¶29

3

¶30

to be set aside.

¶31

Sri Pramod Kumar Srivastava, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel that the writ petitioner is posted in the Gautam Buddh Nagar for a period of more than 7 years, 11 months, 27 days and thus the retention of the writ petitioner for such a long period dis-entitles the writ petitioner to be posted at Gautam Buddh Nagar, particularly, when the writ petitioner holds a transferable post. However, he could not dispute the fact that the issue with the writ petitioner sought to be raised in the earlier spell of litigation and an order which came to be passed by the writ court requiring the authorities to consider the case of the ailment of the writ petitioner has not been taken into account. He submits that the order in question be set aside and the matter stands remitted back to the authorities to pas fresh orders.

¶32

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the records carefully.

¶33

The facts are not in issue. It is not in dispute that the writ petitioner stood transferred on 15.06.2025 from Gautam Buddh Nagar to Agra and questioning the same, the writ petitioner preferred Writ-A No. 9940 of 2025 in which on 21.07.2025 protection was accorded to the writ petitioner and the authority in question was directed to decide the claim of the writ petitioner taking into account the medical ailment in that regard.

¶34

A close reading of the order dated 29.08.2025 of the third respondent reveals that the issue with the writ petitioner sought to raise in view of the provisions contained under clause 5(iv) of the transfer policy seeking retention in Agra on account of 40% disability has not been even touched. Less to say about the recording of any finding in this regard. Once this Court in the earlier spell of litigation required the authorities to consider the said aspect then the authority in question was required to consider the same and in absence of bestowing any consideration upon the same the order impugned cannot be sustained.

¶35

Accordingly, the writ petition is being decided in the following terms:

¶36

(a) The order dated 29.08.2025 passed by the Additional Superintendent of Police Establishment Nimitt DIG Police Karmik, U.P., Lucknow is set aside.

¶37

(b) The matter stands remitted back to the competent authority to pass a fresh order.

¶38

WRIA No. 15198 of 2025

¶39

4

¶40

(c) For facilitation and early disposal, the writ petitioners shall submit said order alongwith a representation/ self attested copy of the writ petition and certified copy of this order by 30.10.2025. A decision may be taken, expeditiously, say within two months thereon.

¶41

Till the passing of the fresh order, the interim protection which was accorded to the writ petitioner on 21.07.2025 in Writ A No. 9940 of 2025 shall continue.

¶42

With the aforesaid observations, the writ petition stands disposed of .

¶43

The instructions is taken on record and marked as appendix 'A'.

¶44

October 17, 2025

¶45

A. Prajapati

¶46

(Vikas Budhwar,J.)

¶47

Digitally signed by :- ASHUTOSH KUMAR PRAJAPATI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Deepak Kumar Sharma v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Deepak Kumar Sharma v. State of U.P. and 3 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

Rajendra Prashad Yadav vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Smt Ruchi vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Indra Pal Singh vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Shashikant Saroj vs State of U.P. and 6 Others

Kanchan vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Ashu Verma vs Union of India and 2 Others