# P.N.O. 872080197 Cons. Bhupendra Singh v. State of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2016) 1 ILRA 19
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2016-01-14
- **Case number:** Service Single No. 560 of 2016
- **Bench:** Rajan Roy
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/p-n-o-872080197-cons-bhupendra-singh-v-state-of-u-p-ors-43403
- **Pages:** 3

## Headnote

C.S.C.
U.P.
Police
Regulation-Regulation 525Transfer
of
civil
police
constable-to
Government Railway Police-challenged on
ground being civil police their cadre can not
changed-held-in view of Full Bench decision
Govt. Railway Police and Civil Police are
same cadre-even after dismissal of petition
by Second petition-quashing the validity of
transfer-held-barred by constructive Resjudicata-moreover can approach by reviewsecond
petition-not
maintainabledismissed.
Held: Para-4
The action impugned in the present case is
merely consequential to the issuance of the
transfer order dated 07.10.2012 which was
challenged in the earlier writ petition,
therefore, now for the petitioner to file a
second writ petition saying that he has
attained the age of 47 years in July, 2014,
therefore, irrespective of the Full Bench
decision and in view of the circular dated
03.03.2012 he is not liable to be compelled
to join in the Government Railway Police
does not appear to be sustainable in the
eyes of law as the petitioner had attained
the age of 47 years when the earlier writ
petition filed by him was still pending,
therefore, he ought to have raised this issue
before this Court in the said writ petition
but not having done so, this writ petition is
barred by the principle of constructive resjudicata and res-judicata, therefore, no writ
of mandamus as prayed for can be issued.
If at all permissible, the petitioner may seek
appropriate remedy by way of review of the
judgment dated 30.07.2015 passed in his
earlier writ petition but no such relief can
be granted in this second writ petition.

## Text

1 All. P.N.O. 872080197 Cons. Bhupendra Singh Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
19
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 14.01.2016
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE RAJAN ROY, J.
Service Single No. 560 of 2016
P.N.O. 872080197 Cons. Bhupendra Singh
 ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors.
...Respondents
Counsel for the Petitioner:
Surya Prakash Singh
Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C.
U.P.
Police
Regulation-Regulation 525Transfer
of
civil
police
constable-to
Government Railway Police-challenged on
ground being civil police their cadre can not
changed-held-in view of Full Bench decision
Govt. Railway Police and Civil Police are
same cadre-even after dismissal of petition
by Second petition-quashing the validity of
transfer-held-barred by constructive Resjudicata-moreover can approach by reviewsecond
petition-not
maintainabledismissed.
Held: Para-4
The action impugned in the present case is
merely consequential to the issuance of the
transfer order dated 07.10.2012 which was
challenged in the earlier writ petition,
therefore, now for the petitioner to file a
second writ petition saying that he has
attained the age of 47 years in July, 2014,
therefore, irrespective of the Full Bench
decision and in view of the circular dated
03.03.2012 he is not liable to be compelled
to join in the Government Railway Police
does not appear to be sustainable in the
eyes of law as the petitioner had attained
the age of 47 years when the earlier writ
petition filed by him was still pending,
therefore, he ought to have raised this issue
before this Court in the said writ petition
but not having done so, this writ petition is
barred by the principle of constructive resjudicata and res-judicata, therefore, no writ
of mandamus as prayed for can be issued.
If at all permissible, the petitioner may seek
appropriate remedy by way of review of the
judgment dated 30.07.2015 passed in his
earlier writ petition but no such relief can
be granted in this second writ petition.
(Delivered by Hon'ble Rajan Roy, J.)
1. Heard learned counsel for the
parties.
2.

The
petitioner
herein
has
challenged an order dated 05.07.2015 by
which the opposite party no. 3 has directed
the opposite party no. 5 to relieve the
petitioner consequent to the transfer order
passed on 07.10.2012 transferring him from
Civil Police to Government Railway Police
as the litigation in this regard has come to
an end and the legal position has been
settled by a Full Bench decision of the
Supreme Court in Om Prakash Singh's case.
3.
The petitioner herein had earlier
filed a writ petition bearing No. 5484(SS) of
2012 challenging the aforesaid transfer
order dated 07.10.2012. Initially stay order
was passed on 09.10.2012. Subsequently, in
view of the Full Bench decision in the case
of Om Prakash Singh and others Vs. State
of U.P. and others, 2014 (3) ALJ 420 the
writ petition was dismissed and the interim
order was vacated. The judgment dated
30.07.2015 passed in the Writ Petition No.
5484(SS) of 2012 filed by the petitioner is
quoted herein below:-
"Heard Sri Yashovardhan Swarup,
Sri Desh Deepak Singh, Sri Rajesh Kumar
Pandey, Sri Yogesh Kumar Awasthi and
other counsel appearing on behalf of
learned counsel for the petitioner in other
20
 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
connected writ petitions, Sri Gyanandra
Kumar Srivastava, learned Additional
Chief Standing Counsel for opposite
parties and perused the record.
Since
the
common question is
involved in the writ petitions , so the same
are being decided by a common judgment.
Facts, in brief, of the present matters
are that petitioners, who are working as
Constable in Civil Police have been
transferred
to
Government
Railway
Police by means of impugned transfer
orders under challenged in the instant
matters by the petitioners on the ground
that as they are working as Constable in
Civil Police for a period of more than ten
years, so they cannot be transferred from
Civil Police to Government Railway
Police in view of the provisions as
provided under Regulation 525 of Uttar
Pradesh Police Regulations.
Controversy involved in the present
matters has been referred to Full Bench
on the following points:-
(1) Whether a police constable
working in the civil police who has
rendered service for more than ten years
cannot be transferred to another branch
in view of the provisions of Regulation
525
of
the
Uttar
Pradesh
Police
Regulations in view of the decision of the
Supreme Court in Jasveer Singh Vs. State
of U.P. & Ors. ( 2008) 1 UPLBEC 657.
(2) Whether the government railway
police and civil police constitute one
cadre or different service cadres.
Thereafter Full Bench of this Court
in the case of Om Prakash Singh and
others Vs. State of U.P. And others, 2014
(3) ALJ 420 answered to the above said
questions after taking into consideration
the Regulation 525 of Uttar Pradesh
Police Regulations in following terms:-
(i) A police constable working in the
civil police who has rendered service for
more than ten years can be transferred to
another branch, as explained above, in
view of the provisions of Regulation 525
of the Uttar Pradesh Police Regulations;
(ii) The government railway police is
a branch of the police force and hence the
transfer of a civil police constable who
has put in more than ten years' service to
the government railway police would not
be prohibited, subject to compliance with
the norms stipulated in Regulation 525 of
the U.P. Police Regulations.
In view of the above said fact, I do
not find any illegality or infirmity in the
impugned orders rather the same are as
per Regulation 525 of the Uttar Pradesh
Police Regulations under challenged in
the writ petitions by which petitioners
have been transferred from the post of
Constable in Civil Police to Government
Railway Police.
Accordingly, the writ petitions lack
merit and are dismissed.
Interim
order,
if
any,
stands
discharged."
4. The action impugned in the
present case is merely consequential to
the issuance of the transfer order dated
07.10.2012 which was challenged in the
earlier writ petition, therefore, now for the
petitioner to file a second writ petition
saying that he has attained the age of 47
years in July, 2014, therefore, irrespective
1 All. Nanhi Devi (Inre 6382 S/S 2015) Vs. Dy. General Manager, Allahabad Bank & Ors.
21
of the Full Bench decision and in view of
the circular dated 03.03.2012 he is not
liable to be compelled to join in the
Government Railway Police does not
appear to be sustainable in the eyes of law
as the petitioner had attained the age of 47
years when the earlier writ petition filed
by him was still pending, therefore, he
ought to have raised this issue before this
Court in the said writ petition but not
having done so, this writ petition is barred
by the principle of constructive resjudicata and res-judicata, therefore, no
writ of mandamus as prayed for can be
issued. If at all permissible, the petitioner
may seek appropriate remedy by way of
review of the judgment dated 30.07.2015
passed in his earlier writ petition but no
such relief can be granted in this second
writ petition.
5. Subject to the above, the writ
petition is dismissed.
-------
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 02.12.2015
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE AMRESHWARI PRATAP SAHI, J.
THE HON'BLE ATTAU RAHMAN MASOODI, J.
Special Appeal No. 565 of 2015
Nanhi Devi (Inre 6382 S/S 2015)
 ...Appellant
Versus
Dy. General Manager, Allahabad Bank &
Ors.
...Respondents
Counsel for the Appellant:
Pradeep Kumar Tripathi
Counsel for the Respondents:
Gopal Kumar Srivastava
Constitution of India, Art.-226-Compassionate
Appointment-Allahabad Bank introducedscheme
by
circular
dated
03.12.14providing cut-off date as 05.08.2014-either
death
or
voluntarily
retirement
or
disappearance etc-admittedly the employee
died on 25.10.2013-not within zone of
consideration-in absence e of challenging
cut-of date before Single Judge-can not be
considered
by
Appellate
court-appeal
dismissed-as the petitioner already availed
ex-gratia payment under scheme prevailing
on that time.
Held: Para-6
We are unable to agree because the
circular
dated
03.12.2014
extracted
herein above categorically clarifies the
aforesaid position which was not under
challenge before the learned Single
Judge. The appellant had also accepted
the benefit under the earlier scheme of
ex-gratia payment.
(Delivered by Hon'ble Amreshwar Pratap
Sahi, J.)
1. Heard Sri Pradeep Kumar
Tripathi, learned counsel for the appellant
and Sri Gopal Kumar Srivastava learned
counsel for the Bank.
2. The challenge raised in this appeal is
to the judgment dated 04.11.2015 on the
ground that the learned Single Judge has
committed an error by not considering the
applicability
of
this
new
scheme
promulgated vide circular dated 03.12.2014
and, therefore, denial of compassionate
appointment by the respondents cannot be
upheld even though the appellant has
received ex-gratia payment.
3.

We
have
considered
the
submissions raised. The circular dated
03.12.2014 as produced by the learned
counsel for the bank is as follows:-
Scheme
for
Compassionate
Appointment in Allahabad Bank