Allahabad High Court
Sumitra (Lady Inspector , ... vs State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. ... on 13 October, 2025
Author: Manish Mathur
Bench: Manish Mathur
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:63189
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
LUCKNOW
WRIT - A No. - 12026 of 2025
Sumitra (Lady Inspector , Pno-100820036)
.....Petitioner(s)
Versus
State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. Of Home And 4 Others
.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s)
:
M.P. Raju
Counsel for Respondent(s)
:
C.S.C.
Court No. - 7
HON'BLE MANISH MATHUR, J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned state counsel for the opposite parties.
2. Petition has been filed challenging order dated June 14, 2025 whereby petitioner's representation for being repatriated from the Intelligence Department to her parent department i.e. the Civil Police in the light of the government order June 19, 2019 has been rejected.
3. Learned counsel submits that as per paragraph 2 (3) Gha and 2 (6) of the government order dated June 19, 2019, a maximum tenure of 6 years has been provided for deputation in the Intelligence Department.
4. It is also submitted that prior to ending of the aforesaid period, an option is required to be taken from the personnel concerned as to whether they wish to continue in the Intelligence Department or wishes to be repatriated to their parent department. It is submitted that in the case of the petitioner, no such option has been sought but she does not wish to continue on deputation and wishes repatriation.
5. It is submitted that aforesaid aspect has already been considered and decided by coordinated benches of this court in the case of Sanjeev Kumar Pal versus State of UP and Others, Writ A No. 2871 of 2024 as well as in the case of Dinesh Kumar Srivastava versus State of UP and others, Writ A No. 12699 of 2024.
6. Learned state counsel has refuted submissions advanced by learned counsel for petitioner with submission that it is clearly indicated in the impugned order that at present there is shortage of manpower in the Intelligence Department due to which such repatriation is not possible.
7. It is submitted that in paragraph five of the order, it has been clearly indicated that a list of personnel currently on deputation with the Intelligence Department has been prepared in order of their tenure with petitioner's name as indicated at serial No. 36. It is submitted that list is being made for repatriation of all such persons in the order of seniority as and when other personnel are available to take their place in the Intelligence Department and the petitioner's case would be considered in her turn.
8. Upon consideration of submissions advanced by learned counsel for parties and perusal of material on record, it is evident that the aforesaid aspect is clearly covered by government order dated June 19, 2019 as has already been enunciated upon by coordinate benches of this court in the cases referred to herein above. Relevant portion of the judgment is as follows:-
"8. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the record what emerges is that admittedly the petitioner, an Inspector in Civil Police, has spent a period of 6 years and 10 months in the Intelligence Department as would be apparent from a perusal of order impugned dated 15.12.2023. The government order dated 19.06.2019 provides maximum term in the Intelligence Department for an Inspector which is 5 years. The said government order also provides for sending back the personnel who do not opt to continue in the Intelligence Department on completion of 5 years. Once the petitioner has already spent six years and 10 months in the Intelligence Department and wants to be sent back to his parent department i.e. the Civil Police consequently the order impugned dated 15.12.2023 per which it has been indicated that on account of shortage of staff it is not possible at this stage to send back the petitioner to his parent department and a seniority list would be maintained for sending the said personnel in the future date clearly is not countenanced in the eyes of law and would be clearly against the government order dated 19.06.2019 which has been issued by the respondents themselves governing the posting in the Intelligence Department. "
9. In the considered opinion of this court, the aforesaid judgment is squarely applicable in the facts and circumstances of the case particularly since petitioner admittedly has spent more than six years in the Intelligence Department on deputation as is indicated in the impugned order itself since she has been working on deputation since 2010.
10. In view thereof, the impugned order dated June 14, 2025 is hereby quashed by issuance of writ in the nature of Certiorari directing opposite party No. 2 i.e. Director General of Police, D.G.P., Lucknow to repatriate petitioner to the parent department, i.e. the Civil Police in view of government order dated June 19, 2019. Appropriate orders shall be passed within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.
11. Resultantly the petition succeeds and is allowed at the admission stage itself. Parties to bear their own costs.
(Manish Mathur,J.)
October 13, 2025
prabhat
