DINESH TRIPATHI Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) SUPPLEMENTARY affidavit has been filed by learned counsel for the petitioner which is taken on record. Time was granted to the learned Standing counsel to seek instructions in this matter because it was alleged that for the last six years he has continued at Kanpur. On the basis of instructions it has been submitted that the petitioner has been posted at Kanpur as Sub- Inspector from 26.6.1998 to 21.6.2004 that exceeds the limit of six years at a stretch. It has been submitted that Sub-Inspector is allowed only six years at his place of posting. Excess period during which the petitioner remained posted at Kanpur was none of the fault of the petitioner and it was the opposite parties who had the right to transfer him immediately after six years but they chose for whatever reason to continue the petitioner for more than six years. When the petitioner was promoted to the post of Inspector on 8.9.2008 then he was allowed to continue till 24.5.2009. Accordingly, total stay of the petitioner at Kapur appears to be of six years and eight months. The petitioner was allowed to stay at this place wholly by the consent and order of the opposite parties and on of his own sweet will. This argument that the petitioner has over stayed goes against the contentions of the opposite parties. However, the specific case of the petitioner on the basis of instructions appears that on last occasion the petitioner has not been posted at Kanpur in the capacity of Inspector for six years. He further submitted that he is being harassed by frequent transfers . In view of what has been stated above, the impugned order of transfer dated 23rd May, 2009, annexed as annexure No.1, is quashed. However, it is open to the opposite parties to consider the case of transfer of the petitioner in the annual chain of transfers whenever the need be. With these observations, the writ petition stands finally disposed of.