Allahabad High Court
Dinesh Shankar Chaturvedi And 4 Others vs State Of U.P. And 2 Others on 22 January, 2021
Author: Ashwani Kumar Mishra
Bench: Ashwani Kumar Mishra
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Court No. - 33 Case :- WRIT - A No. - 553 of 2021 Petitioner :- Dinesh Shankar Chaturvedi And 4 Others Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Kailash Prakash Pandey Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. Hon'ble Ashwani Kumar Mishra,J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the State respondents.
By means of this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, the petitioner has prayed for quashing of the transfer order dated 19.01.2019 passed by respondent no. 2 which is sought to be given effect to vide order dated 19.12.2020.
The argument advanced on behalf of the petitioners are that if in January 2019, petitioner were transferred and there was any exigency of service, the petitioner ought to have been relieved and been given joining at that very point of time. Having not done so, now giving effect to the order after almost two year, shows that the respondents are whimsically trying to implement two year old order without there being any exigency of service involved in the matter. It is also argued that in identical facts and circumstances a writ petition being Writ - A No. 6500 of 2020, Shambhu Nath Pandey vs. State of U.P. and 4 others has come to be allowed vide order dated 02.09.2020 in which his Lordship has relied upon a Single Judge judgment of this Court in the case of Virendra Pal Singh vs. State of U.P. and others in Service Single NO. 22320 of 2017. The order passed by this Court on 02.09.2020 is reproduced hereunder:
"The petitioner who is posted as Head Constable at Reserve Police Lines, Prayagraj has challenged the transfer order dated 27.6.2019 by which he was transferred from his present place of posting at Allahabad to Pratapgarh. He has also challenged the relieving order now passed by Senior Superintendent of Police, Prayagraj dated 8.7.2020, containing a direction to the petitioner and other incumbents to proceed to the transferred place on 10.7.2020.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was not relieved by the respondents themselves in pursuance of transfer order dated 27.6.2019 and consequently, he continued to work in district Prayagraj. The submission is that the impugned order now passed by Senior Superintendent of Police, Prayagraj seeking to implement the order dated 27.6.2019 is a result of gross abuse of powers and total non application of mind. According to him, an incumbent could be transferred keeping in mind the exigencies of service prevailing at the relevant time and not one year after the passing of a transfer order which itself was not implemented by the authorities.
Sri Pranav Ojha, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel does not dispute the position that the respondents themselves did not implement the transfer order dated 27.6.2019 for a considerable period and it is now sought to be implemented by the Senior Superintendent of Police, Prayagraj.
In the similar fact and circumstance, this Court in Service Single No.22320 of 2017 (Virendra Pal Singh Vs. State of U.P. & others) has disposed of the writ petition with the following observations:-
"An order of transfer has been passed on 11.5.2016, which is being given effect to by passing relieving order dated 23.7.2017.
Learned counsel for the parties do not dispute that facts of the present petition are identical to one occurring in Service Single No.10584 of 2017, which has been disposed of on 12.5.2017. The order dated 12.5.2017 is extracted herein below:-
"Heard learned Counsel for petitioners and the learned Standing Counsel.
Petitioners have challenged the impugned relieving order dated 23.04.2017 passed by the Senior Superintendent of Police, Hardoi (opposite party no.4) in pursuance to the transfer order passed on 09.07.2014.
It has been submitted by learned Counsel for petitioners that petitioners were transferred in the years 2014 and 2015 and now after lapse of 2-3 years, the aforesaid impugned relieving order has been passed by opposite party no.4.
Learned Standing Counsel, on the basis of the instructions, has admitted that definitely, the impugned reliving order has been passed too late and, therefore, fresh orders will be passed with respect to the petitioners and other persons who have not join their services in pursuance to the transfer order passed in the years 2014 and 2015.
Admittedly, there is a considerable long delay in passing the impugned and no cogent and justifiable reasons have been given for not acting upon the transfer order immediately when they were passed. Therefore, the impugned order passed in respect of petitioners is legally not sustainable and the same is hereby quashed.
It is open for the opposite parties to transfer the petitioners, if exigency of service so requires, in accordance with law.
With the aforesaid observations/directions, the writ petition is disposed of finally"
This court is in complete agreement with the reasoning given in the order quoted above.
The transfer order passed one year back is now sought to be implemented in a mechanical manner which cannot be permitted. The same is accordingly quashed.
The writ petition is allowed, leaving it open to the respondents to pass a fresh order, if the situation so warrants."
Learned Standing Counsel does not dispute the above legal and factual position and submits that this writ petition can also be disposed of in terms of the above order.
In view of the above, this writ petition is also allowed in terms of the order passed in Writ - A No. 6500 of 2020 on 02.09.2020.
Order Date :- 22.1.2021 n.u.