Allahabad High Court
Ramesh Chandra Pandey vs State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. ... on 3 September, 2025
Author: Manish Mathur
Bench: Manish Mathur
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:52695
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
LUCKNOW
WRIT - A No. - 10175 of 2025
Ramesh Chandra Pandey
.....Petitioner(s)
Versus
State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. And 4 Others
.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s)
:
Sushil Kumar, Harshita Rajnish, Tanuj Singh
Counsel for Respondent(s)
:
C.S.C.
Court No. - 8
HON'BLE MANISH MATHUR, J.
1. Heard learned counsel for petitioner and learned state counsel for opposite parties, who has been provided written instructions dated 2nd September 2025, a copy of which is taken on record.
2. Petition has been filed challenging order dated 14th June 2025, whereby petitioner has been transferred from Sultanpur to Barabanki on the post of Fireman. Also under challenge is the relieving order dated 16th June 2025.
3. The submission of learned counsel for petitioner is that the three-member committee, constituted in terms of government order dated 15th February 2024 for purposes of transfer of Firemen, was improperly constituted, as has already been held by Coordinate Bench of this Court in Writ A No. 7025 of 2025 (Bishambhar Dayal Gautam versus State of U.P. and others).
4. Learned state counsel, on the basis of written instructions, submits that the petitioner's transfer has taken effect in pursuance of decision taken by the board, which could not be properly constituted due to vacancies on the higher post.
5. Upon consideration of submissions advanced by learned counsel for parties and perusal of the material on record, it is evident that the aforesaid aspect has already been considered in Writ A No. 7025 of 2025 (supra), which is as follows:
" 1. Heard learned counsel for petitioner and learned State Counsel for opposite parties.
2. Counter affidavit filed today is taken on record.
3. Earlier on 4th July, 2025 following order had been passed:-
"1. Heard learned counsel for petitioner and learned State Counsel for opposite parties.
2. Petition has been filed challenging order dated 14.06.2025 whereby petitioner has been transferred from Kasganj to Ayodhya on the post of Fireman.
3. It has been submitted that impugned order has been passed against provisions of the Government Order dated 15.02.2024 whereby Three Member Committee has been constituted for purposes of consideration of transfer of Fireman and other similarly situated personnel. It is submitted that the aforesaid Committee indicates Director General Fire Services as Chairman of the Committee with the Director of the Fire Services or the Senior Most Gazetted Officer to be one of the members alongwith a nominee of the Director General. It is submitted that the impugned order has not been passed in accordance with the Committee constituted by means of the aforesaid Government Order since the Director or the Senior Most Gazetted Officer was not a party to the deliberation pertaining to transfer in the meeting held on 06.06.2025. It is submitted that decision with regard to transfer was required to be taken unanimously by the Committee.
4. It is submitted that prior to effecting transfer, a Circular dated 27.03.2025 was also issued by the department requiring three options to be provided by the employees and in pursuance of which petitioner has submitted three options for District Hathras, Mathura or Firozabad but impugned order has been passed without considering aforesaid options.
5. Learned State Counsel has been provided written instructions dated 03.07.2025, a copy of which is taken on record as well as a copy of the report dated 06.06.2025 indicating that the Director/ Senior Most Gazetted Officer did not participate in the meeting due to his unavailability. In paragraph no.2 of the written instruction dated 03.07.2025, it has been stated that Mr. Ajay Kumar Gupta was the Senior Most Gazetted Officer available in the Department but had been visited with major penalty vide order dated 13.09.2021 which was subsequently set aside by the U.P. State Public Services Tribunal but since the said order passed by the Tribunal was challenged before this Court in Writ Petition No.7037 of 2022, he was not invited to participate in the meeting held on 06.06.2025.
6. Prima facie, submissions advanced by learned counsel for petitioner have force and require consideration for which opposite parties are granted two weeks' time to file counter affidavit particularly indicating whether such an exercise can be re-visited with participation of Committee Members as constituted vide Government Order.
7. List this case on 24.07.2025, as fresh.
8. Till next date of listing, operation of impugned order dated 14.06.2025 shall remain stayed so far as it relates to petitioner."
4. In pursuance thereof, the counter affidavit has been filed and in paragraph 3(B) thereof, it is admitted that a committee was constituted on 6th June, 2025 to consider annual transfer of Fireman but the senior most officer on the post of Deputy Director, Mr. Ajay Kumar Gupta was not included due to punishment order dated 13th September, 2021. The said paragraph clearly indicates that against the said punishment order, Mr. Ajay Kumar had filed a claim petition which was allowed setting aside the punishment order but against the judgment rendered by U.P. State Public Services Tribunal, writ A No. 7037 of 2022 is pending consideration.
5. In view thereof, it is quite evident that provisions of government order dated 15th February, 2024 have not been followed since the committee required to be constituted was not constituted in terms thereof.
6. Considering aforesaid admission on behalf on the part of opposite parties, the impugned transfer order dated 14th June, 2025 is hereby quashed by issuance of writ in the nature of Certiorari granting liberty to opposite parties to consider the aspect afresh strictly in accordance with government order dated 15th February, 2024.
7. Resultantly the petition succeeds and is allowed. Parties to bear their own cost. "
6. In view of the fact that the aforesaid judgment is clearly applicable in the present facts and circumstances of the case, the impugned order dated 14th June 2025 and 16th June 2025 are hereby quashed by issuance of Writ in the nature of Certiorari, granting liberty to opposite parties to consider the aspect afresh in terms of the judgment and order dated 24th July 2025, passed in Writ A No. 7025 of 2025. Parties to bear their own costs.
(Manish Mathur,J.)
September 3, 2025
prabhat
