# Gandhi Ashram Magahar v. Ram Samujh

- **Citation:** (2003) 2 ILRA 553
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2003-07-09
- **Case number:** Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 6166 of 2003
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/gandhi-ashram-magahar-v-ram-samujh-40177
- **Pages:** 3

## Headnote

constables for more than 15 yearstransfer to armed police not properconditions of Regulations not fulfilledhence, transfer order quashed.

Held- Para 5

It is the specific case of the petitioners
that they have been in service as
constables for periods ranging from 15
to 20 years. Specific averments to this
effect have been made in Paragraph 17A of the writ petition which fact has not
been denied by the respondents in their
counter affidavit. Considering the fact
that the Superintendent of Police of the
district has the power to transfer a
constable from Civil Police to the Armed
Police only under Regulation 525 of the
Regulations and the conditions of the
said Regulation have not been fulfilled in
the present case as all the petitioners
are admittedly working as constables for
more than 15 years, they could not have
been transferred from the Civil Police to
the
Armed
Police
under
the
said
Regulation. The impugned order dated
28.1.2003 thus deserves to be quashed.
http:\\allahabadhighcourt.nic.in
INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2003
554

## Text

2 All] CN141 CP Kaushlesh Singh and others V. State of U.P. and another
553
Industrial
Disputes
Act,
namely,
termination in pursuance of a stipulation
to that effect in the contract was confined
to fixed term employment referred in
earlier part. Therefore, in absence of fixed
term contract the termination of service of
a workman or striking off his name from
muster-roll would not be covered in the
exception
to
retrenchment.
The
petitioner's service had been terminated
by the respondents under the standing
orders treating it to be abandonment of
employment. The abandonment of service
has not been excluded from the definition
of
retrenchment.
Therefore,
before
terminating the services of the workman
the petitioner was required to follow the
mandatory procedure of retrenchment.
The removal of the name of workman
from the register and depriving him from
work would amount to retrenchment and
would be bad, as mandatory provisions of
retrenchment had not been followed. For
these reasons we are of the opinion that
the learned Single Judge in Kshetriya Shri
Gandhi Ashram Magahar v. Ram Samujh
Maurya and others 1990 (61) Indian
Factories and Labour Reports 1 did not
lay down the law correctly. The answer to
the question referred in the circumstances
is as under:-

 "Where the name of a permanent or
regular workman is removed from the
muster roll on the ground of abandonment
of
service
it
would
amount
to
retrenchment as contemplated by the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and the U.P.
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947."

Let the records be places before the
learned Single Judge.
---------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 09.07.2003

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE VINEET SARAN, J.

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 6166 of 2003

CN 141 CP Kaushlesh Singh and others

 ...Petitioners
Versus
State of U.P. and others ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioners:
Smt. Poonam Srivastava

Counsel for the Respondents:
S.C.

U.P. Police Regulation, Regulation 525-
Transfer of constables-from armed police
to civil police-petitioners working as
constables for more than 15 yearstransfer to armed police not properconditions of Regulations not fulfilledhence, transfer order quashed.

Held- Para 5

It is the specific case of the petitioners
that they have been in service as
constables for periods ranging from 15
to 20 years. Specific averments to this
effect have been made in Paragraph 17A of the writ petition which fact has not
been denied by the respondents in their
counter affidavit. Considering the fact
that the Superintendent of Police of the
district has the power to transfer a
constable from Civil Police to the Armed
Police only under Regulation 525 of the
Regulations and the conditions of the
said Regulation have not been fulfilled in
the present case as all the petitioners
are admittedly working as constables for
more than 15 years, they could not have
been transferred from the Civil Police to
the
Armed
Police
under
the
said
Regulation. The impugned order dated
28.1.2003 thus deserves to be quashed.
http:\\allahabadhighcourt.nic.in
INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2003
554

(Delivered by Hon'ble Vineet Saran, J.)

1. Petitioners are aggrieved by the
order
dated
28.1.2003
passed
by
Respondent
no.2,
Superintendent
of
Police, Mahoba. The petitioners are
Constables in Civil Police and by the
impugned
order
they
have
been
transferred to the Armed Police for a
period of six months.

2. Smt. Poonam Srivastava, learned
counsel appearing on behalf of the
petitioners, has urged that constables of
the Civil Police can be transferred to the
Armed Police by the Superintendent of
Police only under Regulation 525 of the
U.P.
Police
Regulations
(hereinafter
referred to as the Regulations). It has been
contended that since the conditions of the
said regulation are not fulfilled in the
present case, the petitioners could not
have been transferred.

3. Learned Standing Counsel has
submitted that transfer of the constables
from the Civil Police to the Armed Police
can be made by the Superintendent of
Police as per the requirement which may
be assessed by the Superintendent of
Police of the district and in case if he
finds that there is shortage of armed
police personnel, the constables of Civil
Police can be transferred to the Armed
Police. He has, however, not been able to
show
any
other
regulation
besides
Regulation 525 of the Regulations by
virtue of which the Superintendent of
Police of a district can transfer the
constables of the Civil Police to the
Armed Police.

4. Having heard learned counsel for
the parties and on perusal of record, I am
of the opinion that this writ petition
deserves to be allowed. Regulation 525 of
the
Regulations
empowers
the
Superintendent of Police to transfer a
constable of Civil Police to the Armed
Police who has put in more than two years
and less than ten years of service, for a
period not exceeding six months in any
one
year.
Regulation
525
of
the
Regulations is quoted below:-

"525. Constable of less than two
years' service may be transferred by the
Superintendent of Police from the armed
to the civil police or vice versa. Foot
police constables may be transferred to
the mounted police at their own request.
Any civil police constable of more than
two and less than ten years' service may
be transferred to the armed police and
vice versa by the Superintendent for a
period not exceeding six months in any
one year. All armed police constables of
over two years' service and civil police
constables of over two and under ten
years' service may be transferred to the
other branch of the force for any period
with the permission of the Deputy
Inspector General.

In all other cases the transfer of
police officers from one branch of the
force to another or from the police service
of other Provinces to the Uttar Pradesh
requires the sanction of the Inspector
General".

5. It is the specific case of the
petitioners that they have been in service
as constables for periods ranging from 15
to 20 years. Specific averments to this
effect have been made in Paragraph 17-A
of the writ petition which fact has not
been denied by the respondents in their
counter affidavit. Considering the fact that
http:\\allahabadhighcourt.nic.in
2 All] Janpad Auta Rickshaw Chalak Sangh and another V. State of U.P. and others
555
the Superintendent of Police of the district
has the power to transfer a constable from
Civil Police to the Armed Police only
under Regulation 525 of the Regulations
and the conditions of the said Regulation
have not been fulfilled in the present case
as all the petitioners are admittedly
working as constables for more than 15
years,
they
could
not
have
been
transferred from the Civil Police to the
Armed Police under the said Regulation.
The impugned order dated 28.1.2003 thus
deserves to be quashed.

6. The writ petition is, accordingly,
allowed and the order dated 28.1.2003 is
quashed in so far as it relates to the
petitioners. The respondents are restrained
from transferring the petitioners from
Civil Police to the Armed Police.
However, there shall be no order as to
costs.
----------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 10.07.2003

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE M. KATJU, J.
THE HON'BLE R.S. TRIPATHI, J.

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 23210 of 2001

Janpad Auta Rickshaw Chalak Sangh,
Azamgarh and another ...Petitioners
Versus
State of U.P. and others ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioners:
Sri J.P. Singh

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri Govind Krishna
S.C.

U.P. Municipalities Act-1916, Section
298-
power
to
frame
bye-lays-
emposition of licence fee of about Rs.
40/- per month on auto rickshaws-
enforced on basis of Govt. order dated
15.12.99-hence approval by State Govt.
not
needed-amount
imposed
not
arbitrary or exorbitant-

Held- paras 6 and 7

The State of U.P. had framed model byelaws and sent them for implementation.
In para 20 it is stated that the bye-laws
have been enforced on account of the
G.O. of the State Govt. dated 15.2.99,
and as such there is no need of approval
by the State Govt. In para 21 it is stated
that the publication has been made in
Rashtirya Sahara which is a daily news
paper having wide circulation all over
U.P. The allegation that local inhabitants
were not in a position to see the
advertisement was denied.

Annexure 3 to the petition indicates that
the fees for licence of Auto Rickshaw is
Rs.500/- per year which works out to
about Rs.40/- per month. Hence the
impugned
fee
is
not
in
anyway
exorbitant
or
arbitrary.
Similar
notification imposing licence fee on
vehicles,
nursing
homes,
insurance
companies, etc. has been upheld by us.
Case laws discussed:
2001(3) UPLBEC 2483
C.M.W.P.No. 14037 of 1999 decided on
19.5.03.

(Delivered by Hon'ble M. Katju, J.)

1. This writ petition has been filed
for a writ of certiorari to quash the
impugned
bye-lays
dated
28.6.1999
Annexure 3 to the writ petition which
were published in U.P. Gazette dated
20.5.2000. The petitioners also prayed
that respondent nos. 4 and 5 be directed
not to realize licence fee from auto
Rickshaws and not to harass their
operators in this connection.

http:\\allahabadhighcourt.nic.in