Allahabad High Court
Hc (A.P.) Dharmatma Nand Yadav (Pno ... vs State Of U.P.Thru Prin.Secy. Home ... on 28 February, 2020
Author: Rajesh Singh Chauhan
Bench: Rajesh Singh Chauhan
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH ?Court No. - 23 Case :- SERVICE SINGLE No. - 5215 of 2020 Petitioner :- Hc (A.P.) Dharmatma Nand Yadav (Pno No.862466251) Respondent :- State Of U.P.Thru Prin.Secy. Home Police Services Lko.& Ors. Counsel for Petitioner :- Rishi Raj Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. Hon'ble Rajesh Singh Chauhan,J.
Heard learned counsel for the parties.
This Court has passed the order dated 24.02.2020 which reads as under:
"Heard Shri Rishi Raj, learned counsel for petitioner and learned State Counsel appearing on behalf of opposite parties.
Petition has been filed against transfer orders dated 27.11.2019, 04.12.2019 and 25.01.2020 whereby petitioner's transfer from Security Department, Armed Police to Provincial Arms Constabulary (PAC) has been challenged as well as the order rejecting his representation against the same.
Learned counsel for petitioner has submitted that petitioner was initially appointed in the PAC and was subsequently transferred to the Security Department whereafter he was assigned as the personal security officer to a dignitary. By means of impugned orders, he has been posted in the Provincial Arms Constabulary again. Learned counsel for petitioner has drawn attention to paragraph 5 of impugned order dated 25.01.2020 with the submission that no consent of petitioner was taken prior to his posting in the PAC. However, learned counsel for petitioner prays for and is granted a week's time to indicate or bring on record any rules/order whereby such a posting from Armed Police cannot be made into the PAC as has been submitted. Learned State Counsel would also obtain instruction whether any consent of petitioner has been taken for such posting in terms paragraph 5 of order dated 25.01.2020. List this case on 28.02.2020 as a fresh case."
In compliance of the aforesaid order, Shri Vishal Verma, learned State Counsel has produced the copy of the letter dated 27.02.2020 preferred by D.S.P.(Establishment), C/o D.I.G.P. (Personnel), Lucknow enclosing therewith the copy of Government Order dated 12.01.2018, the same is taken on record.
By means of para 6 of the instructions letter dated 27.02.2020, it has been indicated that the petitioner was initially appointed on the post of Constable on 03.11.1986 and thereafter, he was sent to the Security Department of the Police Department when he was serving on the post of Head Constable. Referring the Government Order dated 12.01.2018, it has been indicated that one cadre in armed force has been created taking eligible candidates from PAC and other discipline. Persons who are serving in the cadre of armed force are sent to the Security Department.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn attention of this Court towards para 5 of the impugned order dated 25.01.2020, wherein the recital has been given to the effect that whenever any such persons discharging their duties in armed force may be sent back to the PAC, if they show their willingness. In the present case, as per learned counsel for the petitioner, he has not given his willingness to be sent back at PAC.
Para 5 of the aforesaid instructions letter provides that the petitioner has discharged his duties most of time at Lucknow during his entire service. Therefore, as per the policy of the Department, he may not be retained at Lucknow. Para 7 of the said instructions letter reveals that if the petitioner is willing to be posted at any nearby place at Lucknow, he may prefer a representation to that effect indicating the reason as to why he is willing for that and such request of the petitioner may be considered by the A.D.G., PAC. Such recital has also been given in the impugned order dated 25.01.2020.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that for that purposes, the petitioner has made an alternative prayer to the effect that the opposite parties may send back to the petitioner at Armed Force at Police line, Lucknow from where he was sent to the Security Wing. Thereafter, he may be transferred at any place where he could manage the studies of his children properly.
Be that as it may, since the instructions are clearly indicating that the request of the petitioner for any nearby place may be considered sympathetically considering his compassion, therefore, the petitioner may prefer a fresh representation within 10 days taking all pleas and grounds which are available to him including the plea to the effect that firstly he be sent back to the Armed Police from where he was sent to the Security Wing and pleas of his accommodation at nearby place within a period of 10 days to the Additional Director General of Police, PAC, Lucknow and if such a representation is preferred by the petitioner within aforesaid stipulated time the authority competent shall dispose of the said representation including the relevant Government orders, strictly in accordance with law by a speaking and reasoned order with expedition preferably within a period of one month from the date of production of certified copy of the order of this Court and the decision thereof shall be intimated to the petitioner forthwith.
In view of the aforesaid terms, the writ petition is disposed of.
Order Date :- 28.2.2020 SK/-