Sachin Kumar v. State of U.P. The

learned counsel for the petitioners is that all the petitioners and several others had been transferred to various places while working as Constable vide the order dated 04.01.2024, a copy of which is Annexure-3 to the petition. This compelled the present petitioners to approach this Court by filing Writ A No.4713 of 2025 In Re Constable Armed Police, Personnel No.160711365, Sachin Kumar Vs State of U.P. The petitioners were never relieved in pursuance of the transfer order. During pendency of the said petition itself, the impugned transfer order dated 14.05.2025 was issued.

6. This Court vide the order dated 16.05.2025 considering that a fresh transfer order had been issued, dismissed the Writ A No.4713 of 2025 as infructuous with liberty to the petitioners to file a fresh petition.

7. Incidentally, this Court vide order dated 07.05.2025, a copy of which is Annexure-4 to the petition, had indicated that the respondents will pass a fresh order considering the directions issued by this Court in Writ Petition No.16946(SS) of 2020 In Re Devendra Kumar Singh vs State of U.P. & Ors as well as the Circular issued by the Director General of Police dated 25.11.2020.

8. The judgment of this Court in the case of Devendra Kumar Singh (supra) is Annexure-6 to the petition. The Circular dated 25.11.2020 is Annexure-5 to the petition.

9. In the case of Devendra Kumar Singh (supra), this Court had specifically provided that where a person has not been relieved for a long period of time then in such matters the respondents are at liberty to revisit the matter as to whether the person concerned is required to be transferred.

10. Copy of the said order was also directed to be communicated to the Director General of Police, U.P., Lucknow, who was directed to ensure circulation of the order to all the concerned police officers for strict compliance and in pursuance thereof, the aforesaid circular was also issued by the respondents.

11. Now, the petitioners seek to challenge the transfer order dated

14.05.2025 and the relieving order dated 15.05.2025 as indicated above.

12. Sheet anchor of the argument of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that judgment of this Court in the case of Devendra Kumar Singh (supra) to the extent that although the respondents have been granted liberty to revisit the matter as to whether the person is required to be transferred yet the same would entail that some consideration is to be made considering that a long time having been spent by the respondents between having issued an order of transfer and the relieving order.

13. The argument of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that a perusal of the impugned transfer order dated 14.05.2025 would indicate that because the earlier transfer order has been cancelled and after considering the circular issued by respondents dated 25.11.2020 it has been found necessary to issue a fresh order of transfer as impugned herein but no consideration has been made to the long interregnum period which has transpired between the issuance of earlier transfer order dated 04.01.2024 and the subsequent transfer order dated 14.05.2025 which has been issued i.e. there cannot be an automatic issuance of a fresh transfer order simply because long period of time has lapsed between issuance of the earlier transfer order the same having been cancelled. Thus it is contended that there is no application of mind on the part of the competent authority while issuing the fresh order of transfer as impugned in the instant petition and in having relieved the petitioners on very next day.

14. On the other hand, learned Standing Counsel on the basis of instructions dated 02.06.2025 sent by the office of Police Commissionarate, Ghaziabad has indicated that the fresh transfer order as impugned in the instant petition has been issued in pursuance to the order passed by this court. The said instructions are taken on record.

15. No other ground has been urged by the learned Standing Counsel.

16. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record, it emerges that initially the petitioners had been transferred vide order dated 04.01.2024 yet they were not relieved. The petitioners filed Writ A No.4713 of 2025. During pendency of the said petition also, the petitioners were never relieved rather the impugned transfer order was issued and considering the same the writ petition was dismissed as infructuous leaving it open to the petitioners to challenge the fresh order.

17. Earlier, the aspect of the matter of a transfer order being issued and a relieving order being issued belatedly, has been considered by this Court in the case of Devendra Kumar Singh (supra). The writ court while deciding the said petition clearly provided that considering the long time period of time which is spent between the issuance of a transfer order and the relieving order though the order was quashed but liberty had been granted to the respondents to revisit the matter as to whether the person concerned was required to be transferred meaning thereby that the writ court had specifically required the respondents to consider as to whether with a long passage of time a person is still required to be transferred.

18. A perusal of the order impugned would indicate that nothing emerges as to the application of mind on the part of the competent authority as to whether the persons who are indicated in the order impugned namely the petitioners herein are still required to be transferred despite the earlier transfer order dated 04.01.2024 having not been implemented inasmuch as the order impugned simply indicates that because the earlier order of transfer has been cancelled as such a fresh transfer order is being issued.

19. Incidentally, this Court in the case of Devendra Kumar Singh (supra) had also provided that a copy of the order to be sent to the Director General of Police, who was also required to issue a circular which in fact has been issued and the observations as made by this Court in the case of Devendra Kumar Singh (supra) find reproduced in the said circular. Once the order of the writ court in the case of Devendra Kumar Singh (supra) had attained finality and the circular has also been issued in purported compliance to the aforesaid order passed by the writ court meaning thereby that the respondents are required to apply the mind that considering the long passage of time which has passed subsequent to the earlier order of transfer and the relieving order having issued belatedly, if at all, as to whether a person is still required to be transferred, has to be considered yet again from perusal of the impugned transfer order it does not reflect the mind of the competent authority in issuing the impugned order of transfer.

19. Keeping in view the aforesaid discussion, the writ petition is allowed. The order impugned dated 14.05.2025 and the relieving order dated 15.05.2025, copies of which are Annexure-1 & 2 to the petition, are quashed.

20. Consequences to follow.

21. However, it would be open for the respondents to pass a fresh order considering the directions as issued by the writ court in the case of Devendra Kumar Singh (supra) as well as the circular dated

25.11.2020. Order Date :- 3.6.2025 prateek PRATEEK ARORA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

learned counsel for the petitioners is that all the petitioners and several others had been transferred to various places while working as Constable vide the order dated 04.01.2024, a copy of which is Annexure-3 to the petition. This compelled the present petitioners to approach this Court by filing Writ A No.4713 of 2025 In Re Constable Armed Police, Personnel No.160711365, Sachin Kumar Vs State of U.P. The petitioners were never relieved in pursuance of the transfer order. During pendency of the said petition itself, the impugned transfer order dated 14.05.2025 was issued.

6. This Court vide the order dated 16.05.2025 considering that a fresh transfer order had been issued, dismissed the Writ A No.4713 of 2025 as infructuous with liberty to the petitioners to file a fresh petition.

7. Incidentally, this Court vide order dated 07.05.2025, a copy of which is Annexure-4 to the petition, had indicated that the respondents will pass a fresh order considering the directions issued by this Court in Writ Petition No.16946(SS) of 2020 In Re Devendra Kumar Singh vs State of U.P. & Ors as well as the Circular issued by the Director General of Police dated 25.11.2020.

8. The judgment of this Court in the case of Devendra Kumar Singh (supra) is Annexure-6 to the petition. The Circular dated 25.11.2020 is Annexure-5 to the petition.

9. In the case of Devendra Kumar Singh (supra), this Court had specifically provided that where a person has not been relieved for a long period of time then in such matters the respondents are at liberty to revisit the matter as to whether the person concerned is required to be transferred.

10. Copy of the said order was also directed to be communicated to the Director General of Police, U.P., Lucknow, who was directed to ensure circulation of the order to all the concerned police officers for strict compliance and in pursuance thereof, the aforesaid circular was also issued by the respondents.

11. Now, the petitioners seek to challenge the transfer order dated

14.05.2025 and the relieving order dated 15.05.2025 as indicated above.

12. Sheet anchor of the argument of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that judgment of this Court in the case of Devendra Kumar Singh (supra) to the extent that although the respondents have been granted liberty to revisit the matter as to whether the person is required to be transferred yet the same would entail that some consideration is to be made considering that a long time having been spent by the respondents between having issued an order of transfer and the relieving order.

13. The argument of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that a perusal of the impugned transfer order dated 14.05.2025 would indicate that because the earlier transfer order has been cancelled and after considering the circular issued by respondents dated 25.11.2020 it has been found necessary to issue a fresh order of transfer as impugned herein but no consideration has been made to the long interregnum period which has transpired between the issuance of earlier transfer order dated 04.01.2024 and the subsequent transfer order dated 14.05.2025 which has been issued i.e. there cannot be an automatic issuance of a fresh transfer order simply because long period of time has lapsed between issuance of the earlier transfer order the same having been cancelled. Thus it is contended that there is no application of mind on the part of the competent authority while issuing the fresh order of transfer as impugned in the instant petition and in having relieved the petitioners on very next day.

14. On the other hand, learned Standing Counsel on the basis of instructions dated 02.06.2025 sent by the office of Police Commissionarate, Ghaziabad has indicated that the fresh transfer order as impugned in the instant petition has been issued in pursuance to the order passed by this court. The said instructions are taken on record.

15. No other ground has been urged by the learned Standing Counsel.

16. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record, it emerges that initially the petitioners had been transferred vide order dated 04.01.2024 yet they were not relieved. The petitioners filed Writ A No.4713 of 2025. During pendency of the said petition also, the petitioners were never relieved rather the impugned transfer order was issued and considering the same the writ petition was dismissed as infructuous leaving it open to the petitioners to challenge the fresh order.

17. Earlier, the aspect of the matter of a transfer order being issued and a relieving order being issued belatedly, has been considered by this Court in the case of Devendra Kumar Singh (supra). The writ court while deciding the said petition clearly provided that considering the long time period of time which is spent between the issuance of a transfer order and the relieving order though the order was quashed but liberty had been granted to the respondents to revisit the matter as to whether the person concerned was required to be transferred meaning thereby that the writ court had specifically required the respondents to consider as to whether with a long passage of time a person is still required to be transferred.

18. A perusal of the order impugned would indicate that nothing emerges as to the application of mind on the part of the competent authority as to whether the persons who are indicated in the order impugned namely the petitioners herein are still required to be transferred despite the earlier transfer order dated 04.01.2024 having not been implemented inasmuch as the order impugned simply indicates that because the earlier order of transfer has been cancelled as such a fresh transfer order is being issued.

19. Incidentally, this Court in the case of Devendra Kumar Singh (supra) had also provided that a copy of the order to be sent to the Director General of Police, who was also required to issue a circular which in fact has been issued and the observations as made by this Court in the case of Devendra Kumar Singh (supra) find reproduced in the said circular. Once the order of the writ court in the case of Devendra Kumar Singh (supra) had attained finality and the circular has also been issued in purported compliance to the aforesaid order passed by the writ court meaning thereby that the respondents are required to apply the mind that considering the long passage of time which has passed subsequent to the earlier order of transfer and the relieving order having issued belatedly, if at all, as to whether a person is still required to be transferred, has to be considered yet again from perusal of the impugned transfer order it does not reflect the mind of the competent authority in issuing the impugned order of transfer.

19. Keeping in view the aforesaid discussion, the writ petition is allowed. The order impugned dated 14.05.2025 and the relieving order dated 15.05.2025, copies of which are Annexure-1 & 2 to the petition, are quashed.

20. Consequences to follow.

21. However, it would be open for the respondents to pass a fresh order considering the directions as issued by the writ court in the case of Devendra Kumar Singh (supra) as well as the circular dated

25.11.2020. Order Date :- 3.6.2025 prateek PRATEEK ARORA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench