High Court · 2025

Fire Brigade & Emergency Service, U.P., Lucknow as well as the consequential order of relieving dated 11.04.2025 passed by respondent No.2-Senior Superintendent of Police, District- Ayodhya.

3. Submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner has joined as Firemen in the year 2019-20 at Ram Janma Bhoomi, Ayodhya Dham, Ayodhya. He submits that petitioner is going to retire in 2 years. It is also submitted that one Shailendra Singh, respondent No.6 herein, who is also posted on the post of Firemen at Ayodhya has misbehaved with the family members of the petitioner for which a complaint has been made by the petitioner to the Senior Superintendent of Police, Ayodhya contained as, Annexure 5 to the writ petition.

4. He further submits that the petitioner is suffering from various diseases. The petitioner's feet was fractured on

06.03.2009 and, thereafter, he went for a long treatment. The petitioner also suffers from a heart disease and, therefore, he may not be transferred.

5. On aforesaid complaint made by petitioner, both petitioner and respondent No.6 were called upon by respondent No.3- Chief Fire Brigade Officer, Ayodhya in his office and thereafter, an inquiry was conducted by him. From the record, it appears that wife of Shailendra Singh namely Anjali Singh has also made a complaint alleging that Shailendra Singh is having extra marital affairs with the daughter of petitioner and when she opposed, he has threatened her.

6. Learned A.C.S.C., on the basis of written instructions which are taken on record, has submitted that both Suil Dutt Pandey and Shailendra Singh are Firemen, both are residing in the Government Premises of fire station Sri Ram Janam Bhoomi along with their families. Upon inquiry and after hearing of the audio clip, a complicity of the petitioner and his family members have been found substantiated and both petitioner and respondent No.6 have been found committing indecent conduct and indiscipline and thus, recommendation has been made by respondent No.3 for transferring them to some other places other than Ayodhya. In perspective of the report sent by the Senior Superintendent of Police, Ayodhya, the U.P. Fire Brigade & Emergency Service, Headquarter, Lucknow, has constituted a Transferring Establishment Board and upon due consideration, the petitioner Sunil Dutt Pandey has been transferred from Ayodhya to Lalitpur and Shailendra Singh has been transferred from Ayodhya to Jhansi, both have been relieved from Ayodhya. He submits that upon the report sent by Senior Superintendent of Police on 14.02.2025, both petitioner and respondent No.6 have been transferred on administrative grounds according to the transfer policy of the State Government.

7. Perused the record.

8. From perusal of the record, it appears that allegations and counter allegations have been made by the petitioner as well as respondent No.6 and their family members against each other. Both petitioner and respondent No.6 are residing in the same government colony. The impugned order depicts that the petitioner has been transferred on administrative grounds in order to maintain the decent atmosphere in the colony where the government officers including the petitioner and respondent No.6 reside in which there appears to be no illegality.

9. So far as the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner that he is going to retire within two years is concerned, the record reveals that the petitioner is going to retire on

15.12.2027 thus, approximately two and half years are still remaining. The transfer policy which is relied upon by the petitioner is applicable for the employees who are going to retire within two years. The petitioner apparently is not covered by the said transfer policy thus, the ground taken by petitioner that he is going to retire within two years and on that ground his transfer may be interfered is not tenable.

10. Further, the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is suffering from various diseases and the last ground taken by learned counsel for the petitioner that petitioner's feet was fractured on 06.03.2009 thereafter, he went for a long treatment is concerned, the supplementary affidavit which has been filed today and the same is taken on record shows that fracture took place in the year 2009, more than 15 years have passed since then and the petitioner has duly performed his services therefore, on this ground transfer cannot be interfered. Even otherwise, the transfer is an incident of service, it is inherent in terms of his appointment and it is an essential condition of service thus, the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Mohd. Masood Ahmad v. State of U.P. and others reported in [(2007) 8 SCC 150 has held that if an incumbent is on a transferred post and transfer being exigency of service, the interference in the matter of transfer can be made only in rare cases however, this is not such a case. The similar view has been taken by Hon'ble Apex Court in Vijay pal Singh v. State of U.P., [(1997) 3 ESC 1668, Onkar nath Tiwari v. Chief Engineer, Minor Irrigation Deptt., [(1997) 3 ESC 1866], Rajendra Singh and others v. State of Uttar Pradesh and others, [(2009) 15 SCC 178], Union of India & another vs. Murlidhar Menon & others, [(2009) 11 SCALE 416].

11. In view of above, this Court in the peculiar facts of this case is not inclined to interfere in the transfer order impugned in this petition and accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed.

12. The petitioner who has already been relieved from Agra is directed to join at the transferred post.

13. However, the petitioner is at liberty to move appropriate representation within 2 years from the date of his retirement to the competent authority in view of the transfer policy of the State Government.

14. In case such a representation is made, the same shall be considered by the authority concerned sympathetically as per the yearly transfer policy of the State Government. Order Date :- 16.5.2025 Saurabh Yadav/- SAURABH YADAV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Fire Brigade & Emergency Service, U.P., Lucknow as well as the consequential order of relieving dated 11.04.2025 passed by respondent No.2-Senior Superintendent of Police, District- Ayodhya.

3. Submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner has joined as Firemen in the year 2019-20 at Ram Janma Bhoomi, Ayodhya Dham, Ayodhya. He submits that petitioner is going to retire in 2 years. It is also submitted that one Shailendra Singh, respondent No.6 herein, who is also posted on the post of Firemen at Ayodhya has misbehaved with the family members of the petitioner for which a complaint has been made by the petitioner to the Senior Superintendent of Police, Ayodhya contained as, Annexure 5 to the writ petition.

4. He further submits that the petitioner is suffering from various diseases. The petitioner's feet was fractured on

06.03.2009 and, thereafter, he went for a long treatment. The petitioner also suffers from a heart disease and, therefore, he may not be transferred.

5. On aforesaid complaint made by petitioner, both petitioner and respondent No.6 were called upon by respondent No.3- Chief Fire Brigade Officer, Ayodhya in his office and thereafter, an inquiry was conducted by him. From the record, it appears that wife of Shailendra Singh namely Anjali Singh has also made a complaint alleging that Shailendra Singh is having extra marital affairs with the daughter of petitioner and when she opposed, he has threatened her.

6. Learned A.C.S.C., on the basis of written instructions which are taken on record, has submitted that both Suil Dutt Pandey and Shailendra Singh are Firemen, both are residing in the Government Premises of fire station Sri Ram Janam Bhoomi along with their families. Upon inquiry and after hearing of the audio clip, a complicity of the petitioner and his family members have been found substantiated and both petitioner and respondent No.6 have been found committing indecent conduct and indiscipline and thus, recommendation has been made by respondent No.3 for transferring them to some other places other than Ayodhya. In perspective of the report sent by the Senior Superintendent of Police, Ayodhya, the U.P. Fire Brigade & Emergency Service, Headquarter, Lucknow, has constituted a Transferring Establishment Board and upon due consideration, the petitioner Sunil Dutt Pandey has been transferred from Ayodhya to Lalitpur and Shailendra Singh has been transferred from Ayodhya to Jhansi, both have been relieved from Ayodhya. He submits that upon the report sent by Senior Superintendent of Police on 14.02.2025, both petitioner and respondent No.6 have been transferred on administrative grounds according to the transfer policy of the State Government.

7. Perused the record.

8. From perusal of the record, it appears that allegations and counter allegations have been made by the petitioner as well as respondent No.6 and their family members against each other. Both petitioner and respondent No.6 are residing in the same government colony. The impugned order depicts that the petitioner has been transferred on administrative grounds in order to maintain the decent atmosphere in the colony where the government officers including the petitioner and respondent No.6 reside in which there appears to be no illegality.

9. So far as the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner that he is going to retire within two years is concerned, the record reveals that the petitioner is going to retire on

15.12.2027 thus, approximately two and half years are still remaining. The transfer policy which is relied upon by the petitioner is applicable for the employees who are going to retire within two years. The petitioner apparently is not covered by the said transfer policy thus, the ground taken by petitioner that he is going to retire within two years and on that ground his transfer may be interfered is not tenable.

10. Further, the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is suffering from various diseases and the last ground taken by learned counsel for the petitioner that petitioner's feet was fractured on 06.03.2009 thereafter, he went for a long treatment is concerned, the supplementary affidavit which has been filed today and the same is taken on record shows that fracture took place in the year 2009, more than 15 years have passed since then and the petitioner has duly performed his services therefore, on this ground transfer cannot be interfered. Even otherwise, the transfer is an incident of service, it is inherent in terms of his appointment and it is an essential condition of service thus, the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Mohd. Masood Ahmad v. State of U.P. and others reported in [(2007) 8 SCC 150 has held that if an incumbent is on a transferred post and transfer being exigency of service, the interference in the matter of transfer can be made only in rare cases however, this is not such a case. The similar view has been taken by Hon'ble Apex Court in Vijay pal Singh v. State of U.P., [(1997) 3 ESC 1668, Onkar nath Tiwari v. Chief Engineer, Minor Irrigation Deptt., [(1997) 3 ESC 1866], Rajendra Singh and others v. State of Uttar Pradesh and others, [(2009) 15 SCC 178], Union of India & another vs. Murlidhar Menon & others, [(2009) 11 SCALE 416].

11. In view of above, this Court in the peculiar facts of this case is not inclined to interfere in the transfer order impugned in this petition and accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed.

12. The petitioner who has already been relieved from Agra is directed to join at the transferred post.

13. However, the petitioner is at liberty to move appropriate representation within 2 years from the date of his retirement to the competent authority in view of the transfer policy of the State Government.

14. In case such a representation is made, the same shall be considered by the authority concerned sympathetically as per the yearly transfer policy of the State Government. Order Date :- 16.5.2025 Saurabh Yadav/- SAURABH YADAV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench