Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 1518 (ALL)

Rajeshwar Prasad Mishra v. State of U. P.

2015-06-10

VIVEK KUMAR BIRLA

body2015
JUDGMENT Vivek Kumar Birla, J. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned standing counsel for the State respondents. 2. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 25.5.2015 wherein the petitioner who is working on the post of Head Constable in the Traffic Police has been attached to the Armed Police on the ground that in view of letter dated 28.4.2015 the Head Constables above 50 years of age shall not be allowed to continue in Traffic Police. 3. This controversy has already been settled by this Court in Writ Petition No. 59197 of 2013 (Vishnu Kant Jha and others Vs. State of U.P. and others) and in Writ Petition No. 41528 of 2013 (Pati Ram Yadav Vs. State of U.P. and others) by order dated 10.12.2013, which reads as under: "1. Petitioners have been transferred from Traffic Police to Armed Police only on the ground that they have completed 50 or 45 years of service, as the case may be, and in view of Traffic Directorate's letter dated 7.6.2012, the Head Constables above 50 years and Constables above 45 years shall not be allowed to continue in Traffic Police. It is contended that the Traffic Directorate or Additional Director of Traffic has no such authority or power to lay down conditions of service of U.P. Police Force. 2. Learned Standing Counsel, despite repeated query, could not tell as to under which provision, the Director (Traffic) possess such power to lay down conditions of service regarding transfer and posting of members of Police Force. Admittedly, neither there is any Government Order referable to Section 2 of Police Act, 1861 nor rules have been framed to lay down such conditions of service. In that view of the matter, the Directorate's Circular dated 7.6.2012 is wholly without jurisdiction. 3. A similar matter has already been considered by this Court in Writ Petition (Writ-A) No. 59197 of 2013 (Vishnu Kant Jha and others Vs. State of U.P. and others) decided on 31.10.2013 and it has been held that Director (Traffic) has no authority to lay down conditions of service regarding transfer, posting etc. In that view of the matter, the impugned order of transfer merely on the ground that petitioners have completed 50 years or 45 years, as the case may be, cannot sustain. 4. The writ petition is allowed. In that view of the matter, the impugned order of transfer merely on the ground that petitioners have completed 50 years or 45 years, as the case may be, cannot sustain. 4. The writ petition is allowed. Impugned order of transfer dated 25.2.2013, insofar as it relates to petitioner, is hereby quashed." In view of the law already settled by this Court in the above two writ petitions, the impugned order dated 25.5.2015, in so far as it relates to the petitioner, cannot survive and is accordingly quashed. The writ petition stands allowed.