Allahabad High Court Judgement

Allahabad High Court Judgement

This is an UNCERTIFIED copy for information/reference. For authentic copy please refer to certified copy only. In case of any mistake, please bring it to the notice at mail@myadvocates.club
JUDGEMENT HEADLINE : Transfer Of Traffic Police; Traffic Police Is An Integral Part Of The Police...; This Is A Pure Matter Of Administrative Policy......not To Interfere.
JUDGEMENT TITLE : State Of U.P. And 4 Others Vs. Jagroop Singh And 2 Others On 02/05/2016 By Allahabad High Court
CASE NO : SPECIAL APPEAL DEFECTIVE NO. 60 OF 2016
CORAM : Hon'ble Dhananjaya Yeshwant Chandrachud,Chief Justice And Hon'ble Yashwant Varma,J.

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

Chief Justice's Court AFR

Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL DEFECTIVE No. - 60 Of 2016

Appellant :- State Of U.P. And 4 Others
Respondent :- Jagroop Singh And 2 Others
Counsel For Appellant :- Piyush Shukla
Counsel For Respondent :- Vijay Gautam

Hon'ble Dr. Dhananjaya Yeshwant Chandrachud,Chief Justice
Hon'ble Yashwant Varma,J.

(Per : Dr D Y Chandrachud, CJ)

The Special Appeal Seeks To Challenge A Decision Of The Learned Single Judge Dated 5 June 2015. The Respondents Are Head Constables And Are Posted In The Traffic Police In District Kanpur Dehat. On 25 May 2015, They Were Transferred From The Traffic Police On The Ground That They Have Completed The Age Of 50 Years. Accordingly, In Pursuance Of The Direction Issued By The Additional Director General / Director (Traffic), They Were Sought To Be Transferred On The Ground That They Had Completed Either 50 Years Of Age As Head Constable Or, As The Case May Be, 45 Years Of Age As Traffic Constables. The Order Of Transfer Was Challenged Before The Learned Single Judge. The Learned Single Judge Allowed The Writ Petition And Quashed The Order Of Transfer By Following Two Decisions Of Learned Single Judges In (i) Vishnu Kant Jha And Ors. Vs. State Of UP1 And (ii) Pati Ram Yadav And Ors. Vs. State Of UP2.
The Learned Single Judge In The First Case Held That There Was No Illegality In The Order Of Transfer Passed By The Senior Superintendent Of Police. Dealing With The Submission That The Order Of Transfer Had Been Passed On The Ground That The Petitioners Had Completed 50 Years Of Age And For Which Reason They Had Been Shifted From The Traffic Police, The Learned Single Judge Left It Open To Them To File A Representation To The Competent Authority.
In The Second Decision, The Learned Single Judge Came To The Conclusion That The Letter Of The Traffic Directorate Dated 7 June 2012 To The Effect That Head Constables Above The Age Of 50 Years And Constables Above The Age Of 45 Years Would Not Be Allowed To Continue In The Traffic Police Was Unsustainable, Without Authority Of Law And Was Without Jurisdiction. The Earlier Decision Was Followed By Setting Aside The Order Of Transfer.
As We Have Noted Earlier In The First Decision In Vishnu Kant Jha (supra), The Order Of Transfer Had Not Been Set Aside And Only An Opportunity Had Been Granted To The Petitioners To Submit A Representation To The Competent Authority. However, In Pati Ram Yadav (supra), The Learned Single Judge Went A Step Further And Quashed The Order Of Transfer. We Also Note That A Similar View Has Been Taken By Another Learned Single Judge Of This Court In Surya Nath Singh And Ors. Vs. The State Of UP3 And In Other Decisions. Evidently, In Taking The View That The Learned Single Judges Did In The Decision In Vishnu Kant Jha (supra) And Later In Pati Ram Yadav (supra), A Judgment Of The Division Bench Of This Court In Birendra Singh Vs. State Of UP4 Was Not Noticed. We Extract Below The Judgment Of The Division Bench:
"The Petitioners-appellants Have Been Transferred From Traffic Police To Armed Police On The Ground That They Have Crossed The Age Of 50 Years. This Has Been Done Pursuant To The Policy Decision Dated 06-06-2001, Which Provides That No Person Shall Be Posted In Traffic Police After The Age Of 50 Years. Earlier This Age Limit Was 45 Years.
The Argument Of The Learned Counsel For The Appellants Is That The Policy Decision Dated 06-06-2001 Has Been Misinterpreted And Consequently Mis-applied. He Submits That According To Him Only Posting In Traffic Police After Attaining The Age Of 50 Years Is Prohibited. According To His Interpretation If A Person Has Been Appointed/transferred To Traffic Police Before The Age Of 50 Years He Can Continue There Till Superannuation.
This Kind Of Interpretation Of The Policy Dated 6th June, 2001 Is Not Logical And Therefore Not Acceptable. There Is No Logic In Holding That A Person, Who Has Been Posted To Traffic Police At The Age Of 49 Years Can Continue There Till The Age Of Superannuation I.e. 60 Years, Whereas A Person Who Is Aged Above 50 Years Cannot Be Posted To Traffic Police.
The Writ Court Cannot Interfere In Policy Matters, That Too By An Illogical Interpretation Of A Policy.
There Is No Merit In This Appeal. The Appeal Is, Accordingly, Dismissed."

We Are In Respectful Agreement With The View Which Has Been Taken By The Division Bench In The Aforesaid Case. Traffic Police Is An Integral Part Of The Police Department In The State. Services Are Transferable From One To The Other.
Section 2 Of The Police Act, 1861 Provides That The Entire Police Establishment Under A State Government Shall For The Purpose Of The Act Be Deemed To Be One Police Force And Shall Be Formally Enrolled And Shall Consist Of Such Number Of Officers And Men, And Shall Be Constituted In Such Manner As Shall From Time To Time Be Ordered By The State Government.
Basically, Issues Of Assignment Of Employees Between The Traffic Department And Other Departments Of The Police Are Matters Of Administrative Exigency. In Such Matters, The Powers Of The Court Have To Be Wielded With Caution And Circumspection. The Court Is Not Justified In Interfering With Matters Of Internal Administration. No Person Has A Vested Right To Continue In The Traffic Police. Members Of The Police Force Are Not Immune From Internal Postings And Transfers. They Belong To A Uniformed Force And Must Abide By Its Discipline And Norms. The Courts Should Not Encourage Needless Recourse To Litigation Which Obstructs The Even Flow Of Work And Administration.
On 25 May 2015, An Administrative Instruction Was Issued By The Additional Director General / Director (Traffic) For The Transfer Of Those Head Constables Who Had Completed 50 Years Of Age And Of Constables Of 45 Years Of Age From The Traffic Police. This Is A Pure Matter Of Administrative Policy With Which The Court Ought Not To Interfere.
Hence, We Come To The Conclusion That The Impugned Judgment Of The Learned Single Judge Dated 5 June 2015 Allowing The Writ Petition And Setting Aside The Orders Of Transfer Of The Respondents Cannot Be Sustained.
The Special Appeal Is Allowed In The Aforesaid Terms. The Writ Petition Filed By The Respondents Shall, Accordingly, Stand Dismissed. A Copy Of This Order Be Placed On The Record Of The Writ Petition.
There Shall Be No Order As To Costs.
Order Date :- 5.2.2016
RK
(Yashwant Varma, J) (Dr D Y Chandrachud, CJ)




C.M. (Delay Condonation) Application No. 23497 Of 2015
Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL DEFECTIVE No. - 60 Of 2016
***
Hon'ble Dr. Dhananjaya Yeshwant Chandrachud,Chief Justice
Hon'ble Yashwant Varma,J.

The Delay Of 200 Days In Filing The Special Appeal Is Condoned Since Sufficient Cause Has Been Shown In The Affidavit Filed In Support Of The Delay Condonation Application.
The Application Is, Accordingly, Disposed Of.

Go to Navigation