Ali Ahmad v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Dept. Home Lko. and 3 Others

Court No. - 20 Case :- WRIT - A No. - 9469 of 2023 Petitioner :- Ali Ahmad Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Dept. Home Lko. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Mohammed Shariqmohammed Shariq,Mohd. Hayan Hasan,Qamrul Hasan Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. Hon'ble Manish Mathur,J.

¶1Heard learned counsel for petitioner and learned State Counsel for opposite parties.

¶2Petition has been filed challenging order dated 24.05.2023 whereby petitioner has been transferred from Lucknow Range to Ayodhya Range while in the post of Sub-Inspector. Also under challenge is the relieving order dated 04.12.2023.

¶3It has been submitted that the aforesaid reliving is against the provisions of paragraph no. 523 of the U.P. Police Regulations which prescribes a maximum period of ten days for relieving the employee from the date of transfer.

¶4Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that identical controversy has engaged attention of this Court by referring one order dated 01.01.2020 passed by this Court in Writ Petition No.36661 (S/S) of 2019; Vijay Kumar Singh & others vs. State of U.P. & others. In the case of Vijay Kumar Singh & Ors.(supra), there was delay of two months in relieving the petitioners pursuant to the transfer order and this Court considering the order dated 11.11.2016 passed in Writ Petition No.26462 (S/S) of 2016 quashed the impugned order giving liberty to the department to pass fresh transfer order, if it is so required.

¶5Learned Standing Counsel has opposed the request of petitioners by submitting that in Writ Petition No.26462 (S/S) of 2016 this Court vide judgment and order dated 11.11.2016 had quashed the transfer order and relieving order for the reasons that there was delay in two years by relieving such petitioner, but in the present case, there is a meager delay of six months and in the matter of police personnel this delay may not be considered as inordinate delay.

¶6It is noticed that in the case of Vijay Kumar Singh (supra), the primary aspect for interference was that exigency of transfer becomes infructuous in case of unreasonable delay in relieving.

¶7Although, finding substance in submission of learned Standing Counsel but keeping in view the judgment and order of coordinate Bench of this Court rendered in re: Vijay Kumar Singh & Ors. (supra) whereby this Court had quashed the relieving order which was issued after the delay of two months, the impugned order 24.05.2023 and relieving order dated

04.12.2023 are hereby quashed by issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari. (Annexure Nos.1 and 2), so far as the same relate to the present petitioners, giving liberty to the opposite parties to pass fresh orders, if exigency of service so requires, but strictly in accordance with law.

¶8The writ petition is, therefore, allowed.

¶9No order as to costs. Order Date :- 13.12.2023 prabhat High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench