# Gyandhari Pal and others v. State of U.P. and others

- **Citation:** (2007) 3 ILRA 852
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2007-10-11
- **Case number:** Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 50257 of 2007
- **Bench:** Rakesh Tiwari
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/gyandhari-pal-and-others-v-state-of-u-p-and-others-41093
- **Pages:** 3

## Headnote

U.P. Re-orgnisation Act 2000-Transfer of
Police constable from U.P. to State of
Uttarakhand-approved by the advisory
committee of both State-final list of
transfer published-in the eye of law the
petitioner will be deemed to be the
employee
of
Uttrakhand-High
Court
Allahabad has no jurisdiction- even the
3 All] Gyandhari Pal and others V. State of U.P. and others
853
transfer
is
a
policy
matter-No
interference called for.

Held: Para 8

Since final allocation has been made
after
inviting
objections
from
the
petitioners I am of the considered
opinion
that
the
Court
should
not
interfere
in
the
policy
matter
of
allocation of employees to the two
States under the statutory provisions of
the Reorganization Act, 2000. Transfer is
an exigency of service. The State of U.P.
has been bifurcated under the U.P.
Reorganization Act, 2000 and now the
State of Uttaranchal has been carved
out. The provision of allocation of
experienced officers by way of transfer
have been made in the Act for smooth
functioning of the new State and also for
reducing
the
burden
of
surplus
manpower in the parent State of U.P.
Case law discussed:
1975 FLR Vol. 31, Page 248 relied on.

## Text

852 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2007
(3) Since the petitioner has worked as a
Public Relation Officer, the salary
and the benefits drawn by him on the
post of a Public Relation Officer
shall not be refunded and he would
be entitled to retain the said amount
on the principle of having worked on
that post inspite of the undertaking
obtained
by
the
Ghaziabad
Development Authority.
(4) A mandamus is issued to the State
Government to consider the proposal
of
the
Ghaziabad
Development
Authority for the creation of the post
of a Public Relation Officer within
three months from today. If the State
Government finds that there is a need
for the creation of a post of a Public
Relation Officer, then necessary
orders would be passed for its
creation and sanctioning of the post
of Public Relation Officer within the
aforesaid period.
(5) In the event, the post is sanctioned,
the petitioner would be given the first
preferential right for appointment on
the post of the Public Relation
Officer. The State Government will
also issue an appointment letter on an
adhoc basis within two weeks of the
sanctioning of the post provided the
petitioner is found to be qualified for
the said post.
(6) The State Government and the
Ghaziabad Development Authority,
as the case may be, will forward the
necessary papers r to the Public
Service Commission for post facto
approval of the appointment. This
appointment would be subject to the
conditions
that
the
petitioner
possesses the requisite qualifications.
(7) If for some reason, the State
Government refuses or declines to
sanction the post of a Public Relation
Officer in Ghaziabad Development
Authority,
in
that
event,
the
Ghaziabad Development Authority
will
promote
the
petitioner
or
provide
him
with
consequential
fitment benefit on such post which is
equivalent to the pay scale to which
the petitioner is drawing as on date,
so that does he does not suffer any
further monetary loss.

The writ petition is allowed with the
aforesaid directions.

Shri R.K. Chaubey, the learned
Standing Counsel will sent a certified
copy of the judgment to the State
Government immediately for necessary
action and compliance.
---------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 11.10.2007

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE RAKESH TIWARI, J.

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 50257 of 2007

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

Counsel for the Petitioners:
Sri Atul Kumar

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri H.P. Singh
S.C.

U.P. Re-orgnisation Act 2000-Transfer of
Police constable from U.P. to State of
Uttarakhand-approved by the advisory
committee of both State-final list of
transfer published-in the eye of law the
petitioner will be deemed to be the
employee
of
Uttrakhand-High
Court
Allahabad has no jurisdiction- even the
3 All] Gyandhari Pal and others V. State of U.P. and others
853
transfer
is
a
policy
matter-No
interference called for.

Held: Para 8

Since final allocation has been made
after
inviting
objections
from
the
petitioners I am of the considered
opinion
that
the
Court
should
not
interfere
in
the
policy
matter
of
allocation of employees to the two
States under the statutory provisions of
the Reorganization Act, 2000. Transfer is
an exigency of service. The State of U.P.
has been bifurcated under the U.P.
Reorganization Act, 2000 and now the
State of Uttaranchal has been carved
out. The provision of allocation of
experienced officers by way of transfer
have been made in the Act for smooth
functioning of the new State and also for
reducing
the
burden
of
surplus
manpower in the parent State of U.P.
Case law discussed:
1975 FLR Vol. 31, Page 248 relied on.

(Delivered by Hon'ble Rakesh Tiwari, J.)

1. Heard learned counsel for the
petitioner, the standing counsel for the
respondents and perused the record.

2. The contention of the counsel for
the petitioner is that the petitioners were
appointed in U.P. Police on the post of
Constables.

3. It is further submitted that
respondent No.5 passed an order on
31.5.2007 directing the department of
police in which 675 Constables have been
transferred
from
U.P.
to
State
of
Uttrakhand.

4. It is next submitted that .the
respondent No.8 published a list on
24.9.2007 of 182 Constables who has to
be transferred from State of U.P. to
Uttrakhand, the petitioners' name find
place at Sl. No. 163, 167 and 168.

5. Thereafter the petitioners have
approached to the Deputy Inspector
General of Police, Police Head Quarter
Allahabad, U.P by an application, which
is still pending.

6. Aggrieved by the final allocation
order
of
State
of
Uttaranchal
the
petitioners have come up in this writ
petition.

7.

According
to
the
U.P.
Reorganization
Act,
2000
list
of
allocation and the transfer list of the
employees have to be decided by State
Advisory Committees of the two States
and final list was to be decided by the
Union of India. Now final allocation has
taken place after consultation between the
State Advisory Committees of the two
States and the Union of India.

8. Since final allocation has been
made after inviting objections from the
petitioners I am of the considered opinion
that the Court should not interfere in the
policy matter of allocation of employees
to the two States under the statutory
provisions of the Reorganization Act,
2000. Transfer is an exigency of service.
The State of U.P. has been bifurcated
under the U.P. Reorganization Act, 2000
and now the State of Uttaranchal has been
carved out. The provision of allocation of
experienced officers by way of transfer
have been made in the Act for smooth
functioning of the new State and also for
reducing the burden of surplus manpower
in the parent State of U.P.

9. Moreover, this writ petition is
without jurisdiction in view of the
854 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2007
decision rendered in General Manager.
N.E. Railway, Gorakhpur and others
Vs. Jamait Ram Khatanani and others.
1975 IFLR Vol.31 page-246. In that case
the Court held that once an employee is
transferred and posted to a particular
place acceptance of the transfer order by
that employee is immaterial. Even though
he may not join his duties or physically
may not go to the new place of posting he
will continue to be posted there in the eye
of law. His place of posting cannot be
deemed to have changed merely because
he disobeys the order of his transfer.

10. In this view of the matter the
services
of
the
petitioners
having
transferred to the State of Uttaranchal
only
the State of Uttaranchal has
territorial jurisdiction in the matter.

11. The writ petition is accordingly
dismissed. No order as to costs.
---------
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 29.11.2007

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE SHIV CHARAN, J.

Crl. Misc. Application No. 26851 of 2007

Mustakim

...Applicant
Versus
State of U.P. & another..Opposite Parties

Counsel for the Applicant:
Sri Mohit Singh

Counsel for the Opposite Parties:
A.G.A.

Code of Criminal Procedure-Section 482Summoning order under Section 319-on
the basis of statements examination inchief of P.W. 1-Magistrate can not based
in consideration upon the statement and
material
collected
by
investigating
officer-but the satisfaction is paramount
consideration-held-impugned order need
no interference.

Held: Para 9

On the basis of the above, I am of the
opinion the trial court based the order of
summoning u/s 319 Cr.P.C. after being
satisfied from the statement of Mohd.
Asif P.W.1 after examination in chief and
it all depends upon the satisfaction of
the trial court in order to pass the order
of summoning on the basis of the
statement of this witness. Hence there is
no illegality and irregularity in the order.
The application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. deserves
to be dismissed.
Case law discussed:
J.T. 2007 (5) SC-562
2007(4) SCC 773
2006 (1) SCC (Criminal) 568

(Delivered by Hon'ble Shiv Charan J.)

The present application has been
moved u/s 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing the
order dated 24.10.2007 passed by Addl.
Sessions Judge Court no.4 Etawah in S.T.
No.158/05 u/s 147,302 IPC.

2. A perusal of the documents shows
that FIR was lodged by Mohd Asif on
20.5.2007 at about 9.45 pm against
Mustkim applicant and four other accused
persons registered at Crime no.71 of 2005
u/s 147,302 IPC P.S. Ekdil, District
Etawah. The matter was investigated by
the police and charge sheet was submitted
against the accused persons except the
applicant
Mustkim.
Afterwards
the
statement of Mohd. Asif P.W.1 was
recorded and on the basis of the statement
of examination in chief of this witness,
application was moved for summoning
the applicant Mustakim for the offence u/s