Nov - High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

More documents

Recommendations

Info

1010 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2009 but the respondent no. 3 also kept silence in this matter and it is only when he was personally summoned, took steps which he could have taken earlier for paying the salary to the petitioner. To this extent, the respondent no. 3 is also guilty and is to be held responsible. 23. In the circumstances, the writ petition is allowed with the direction to the respondents to pay simple interest on the delayed payment of salary to the petitioner at the rate of 8% p.a. from the date the same became due till actual payment. 24. Liberty is given to respondent no. 1 to realize the amount of interest paid to the petitioner under this order from the officials concerned who, it may found responsible after holding an appropriate departmental enquiry in this matter. 25. In view of the above discussion, this Court is satisfied that here is a case where the conduct of the respondents makes them liable for an exemplary cost which I quantify to Rs. two lacs. This would also be compensatory to the petitioner. The liability is distributed to the extent of Rs. 1.5 lacs against respondent no. 5 and fifty thousands against respondent no. 3. The above cost shall be paid by them within six months failing which it would be open to the Registrar General of this Court to take steps to realize the same amount as arrears of land revenue. After realizing the amount of cost, the same may be released in favour of the petitioner. --------- ORIGINAL JURISDICTION CIVIL SIDE DATED: ALLAHABAD 09.11.2009 BEFORE THE HON’BLE PANKAJ MITHAL, J. Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.51528 of 2009 Rishi Pal Singh Versus State of U.P. and others Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri Vijay Gautam Counsel for the Respondents: C.S.C. …Petitioner …Respondents Constitution of India-Article 226- Transfer of Sub-Inspector-who remained in adjoining District for 24 yearsinvolved in Criminal Case offence under 379 IPC-on ground of challenge made that the approving authority-‘Police Establishment Board’ not properly constituted-G.O. dated 12.08.09 providing the approval of the decision of Board by D.G.P.-which put further check on exercise of power of Transfer-helddirection of Supreme Court in Prakash Singh Case fully complied with-No scope for technical plea-Transfer order can not be interfered. Held: Para 16 & 17 In the aforesaid facts and circumstances, in so far as the police Establishment Board that has granted approval to the transfer of the petitioner is concerned has subserved the object with which the guidelines were laid down by the Supreme Court, the approval so granted would not stand vitiated only for the reason that the Director General of Police has not been included as one of its members specially when the approval granted by the Police Establishment Board is further required to be approved by the Director General of Police.
3 All] Rishi Pal Singh V. State of U.P. and others 1011 Thus, in effect the guidelines issued by the Supreme Court with regard to the creation of the Police Establishment Board have been followed and implemented by the State Government in pith and substance according to the true spirit. Any technical infraction in the implementation of the said guidelines cannot be a subject of consideration by this Court. Case law discussed: (2006) 8 SCC 1, Writ Petition No.1525 of 2009 decided on 4.9.2009, 2003(1) UPLBEC 636. (Delivered by Hon'ble Pankaj Mithal, J.) 1. Petitioner who is a Sub-Inspector (Special Category) in U.P. Police has challenged the order dated 16.9.2009 passed by the Deputy Inspector General (Establishment), U.P. Police Headquarters, Allahabad transferring him from district Gautam Budh Nagar to Mau in public interest with the approval of Police Establishment Board. 2. On behalf of the petitioner a supplementary affidavit and then a second supplementary affidavit has been filed. Learned Standing Counsel was earlier allowed time to obtain instructions and to file counter affidavit. A counter affidavit as well as a supplementary counter affidavit has been filed by the learned Standing Counsel on behalf of respondents no.1 to 5 and respondent no.7 to which even rejoinder affidavit has been filed. The counsel for the parties as such agree for final disposal of the writ petition at the admission stage itself. Accordingly, having heard Sri Vijay Gautam, learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for the respondentsat length, I proceed to decide the matter finally. 3. Before addressing various points which have been canvassed by the learned counsel for the petitioner in order to assail the impugned order, it is tiride to mention that under the service jurisprudence transfer of an employee who holds a transferable post is a normal feature and has been recognised throughout as an incident of service. In the matter of the transfer, the Government/employer has a wide discretion and it is the employer who is the best judge to utilise the service of its employee and to place and post him at its discretion accordingly. The employee has no legal say in the matter of his posting except to bring to the notice of the authority concerned his personal difficulty or any hardship. The employee as such, as no vested right either to insist for a particular post or to be posted at a particular place or to stick to a particular one. In fact, transfer has been considered necessary in public interest and to maintain efficiency in public administration. Therefore, it has been settled by a catena of authorities that ordinarily transfer orders are not to be interfered with on the judicial side until and unless it is shown that the order of transfer passed is without jurisdiction; is in breach of any statutory rule or it has been motivated by malice of fact or law or is proved to be punitive, vindictive or stigmatic in nature. 4. It is in the above settled legal background that I have to examine the validity of the impugned order. 5. The first submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the Police Establishment Board (hereinafter referred to as "the Board") which had granted approval to the transfer is not properly constituted as per the
Page 1 and 2: 3 All] Smt. Katori Devi V. Nawab Si
Page 7 and 8: 3 All] Kailash Babu Gupta V. State
Page 9 and 10: 3 All] Anil Kumar Vashisth V. State
Page 11 and 12: 3 All] Anil Kumar Vashisth V. State
Page 13 and 14: 3 All] Smt. Sadhana Singh V. State
Page 21 and 22: 3 All] C/M, Lok Bharti Inter Colleg
Page 23 and 24: 3 All] Krishan Kumar V. State of U.
Page 25 and 26: 3 All] Smt. Raman Pandey and others
Page 27 and 28: 3 All] Smt. Shailendra Rai V. State
Page 37: 3 All] Smt. Shailendra Rai V. State
Page 41 and 42: 3 All] Rishi Pal Singh V. State of
Page 43 and 44: 3 All] Rishi Pal Singh V. State of
Page 45 and 46: 3 All] Naik R.K. Mahapatra V. Chief
Page 53 and 54: 3 All] Jafar Khan V. State of U.P.
Page 55 and 56: 3 All] New India Assurance Co. Ltd.
Page 61 and 62: 3 All] National Insurance Co.Ltd. V
Page 63 and 64: 3 All] National Insurance Co.Ltd. V
Page 65 and 66: 3 All] Vinay Kumar Upadhyay V.State
Page 67 and 68: 3 All] Vinay Kumar Upadhyay V.State
Page 69 and 70: 3 All] Aligarh Muslim University an
Page 71 and 72: 3 All] Aligarh Muslim University an
Page 73 and 74: 3 All] Rishikesh Lal Srivastava V.S
Page 89 and 90:
3 All] Rishikesh Lal Srivastava V.S
Page 91 and 92:
Page 93 and 94:
Page 95 and 96:
Page 97 and 98:
Page 99 and 100:
3 All] Matloob Gaur V.State of U.P.
Page 101 and 102:
Page 103 and 104:
Page 105 and 106:
Page 107 and 108:
3 All] Ashutosh Kumar Tripathi V.St
Page 109 and 110:
3 All] Superintending Engineer and
Page 111 and 112:
Page 113 and 114:
Page 115 and 116:
3 All] Dr. R.C. Agrawal and another
Page 117 and 118:
Page 119 and 120:
Page 121 and 122:
Page 123 and 124:
show all

Nov - High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?