Allahabad High Court
Prahalad Singh vs State Of U.P. Thru. The Prin. Secy. ... on 24 June, 2021
Bench: Ritu Raj Awasthi, Dinesh Kumar Singh
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Court No. - 1
Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL DEFECTIVE No. - 210 of 2021
Appellant :- Prahalad Singh
Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. The Prin. Secy. Deptt. Of Home & Ors.
Counsel for Appellant :- Ramesh Singh
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Ritu Raj Awasthi,J.
Hon'ble Dinesh Kumar Singh,J.
Order on the application for condonation of delay (C. M. Application No. 66712 of 2021)
Heard Sri Ramesh Singh, learned counsel for the appellant and the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents.
The appeal has been filed with some delay of 64 days. It is accompanied with an application for condonation of delay. The cause shown in the affidavit filed in support of the application for condonation of delay is sufficient and more particularly considering the Apex Court's order dated 27.04.2021, passed in Misc. Application No.665 of 2021 in SMW (C) No.3 of 2020; Cognizance for Extension of Limitation Vs. XXXX, we find it appropriate to condone the delay.
Accordingly, the application for condonation of delay is allowed and the delay in filing the appeal is condoned.
Order on the memo of Special Appeal
This intra-court appeal has been filed challenging the judgment and order dated 19.3.2021 passed in Writ Petition No.4260 (SS) of 2021, Prahalad Singh Vs. State of U.P. Thru Principal Secretary, Home and others, whereby the learned Single Judge after considering the case on merit has dismissed the writ petition finding no merit.
Learned counsel for the appellant-petitioner submits that the petitioner was appointed on the post of Sub-Inspector in the Police Department. On 8.2.2018, he was promoted on the post of Inspector. Vide order dated 8.6.2019, the petitioner was transferred from Ayodhya to Lucknow on compassionate ground due to the serious illness of his wife. Submission is that treatment of his wife is still going on in a hospital in Lucknow, but without considering the said fact, vide order dated 8.1.2021, the petitioner has been transferred from Lucknow to Gorakhpur.
The appellant-petitioner preferred Writ Petition No.1230 (SS) of 2021 challenging his transfer order. The said writ petition was disposed of vide order dated 18.1.2021 with liberty to the petitioner to raise his grievance before the respondents. In pursuance of the Court's order, representation of the petitioner was considered and the transfer order of the petitioner was deferred vide order dated 4.2.2021, however, within a short period of three days i.e. 7.2.2021, the petitioner was relieved by the Police Commissioner, Lucknow on an oral instruction received by him from the Superintendent of Police (Karmik), Police Head Quarter. The appellant-petitioner thereafter preferred Writ Petition No.4260(SS) of 2021, which has been dismissed by the impugned order.
Submission is that the learned Single Judge has not properly considered the import of Para-520 of the Police Regulations and has also not considered the fact that the compassionate ground, on which the appellant-petitioner was transferred from Lucknow to Gorakhpur, still exists and the wife of the appellant-petitioner is still ill.
We have considered the submissions and gone through the record.
Para-520 of the Police Regulations provides that a police officer may stay in one district upto five years. To our mind, Para-520 of the Police Regulations does not mandate that a police officer shall remain posted at one place for five years. The maximum period provided for posting a police officer at one place has been given as five years. It is not in dispute that the appellant-petitioner is working on a transferable post and transfer is an incidence of service.
Learned Single Judge has observed that the medical facility at the transferred place i.e. Gorakhpur is equally good as available in Lucknow. There is no illegality or irregularity in the said transfer of the appellant-petitioner. The case laws relied upon by the learned Single Judge in support of his finding are rightly applied and they are fully applicable to the case of the appellant-petitioner. We do not find any infirmity or any illegality in the order impugned.
The appeal being devoid of merit, is dismissed at the admission stage.
Order Date :- 24.6.2021
Rao/-
