Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:12013 Court No. - 6 Case :- WRIT - A No. - 2164 of 2025 Petitioner :- Surendra Bahadur (Pno-882120953) Respondent :- The State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Of Home Lko. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Shivangi Pandey,Sunil Kumar Pandey Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. Hon'ble Alok Mathur,J. 1. Heard Ms. Shivangi Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioner and the Standing counsel for the respondents. 2. The petitioner has approached this Court being aggrieved by the order dated 29.1.2025 passed by Inspector General of Police (Establishment), U.P. thereby rejecting the representation of the petitioner by which the petitioner had requested to be transferred to District Pilibhit or any place adjacent to the said District, which is his home District considering the fact that the petitioner is due to superannuate within next two years. 3. It has been submitted that the petitioner was initially appointed as Head Constable in 1988 and is due to retire on 31.12.2025. The petitioner is presently posted in District Barabanki and in view of the provision of the Government Order dated 28.3.2024, which is the policy framed by the respondents for the annual transfer for the year 2024, it has been stated that there is a provision for transfer on compassionate grounds and accordingly had made a representation to the respondents to transfer the petitioner in District Pilibhit which is his home District. When the representation was not considered the petitioner had approached this Court by filing writ petition bearing Writ A No.10921 of 2024 which was disposed of by means of order dated 21.11.2024 directing the respondents to consider the representation of the petitioner expeditiously. It is in pursuance of the directions of this Court that the impugned order has been passed rejecting the representation. 4. While rejecting the representation the respondents have firstly stated that as per the Government Oder dated 28.3.2024 it has already been provided that interest of administration shall supersede the interest of individual police officers. Further, it has been stated in the impugned order that at District Barabanki there are 817 sanctioned poses of Head Constable (Civil Police) against which 626 Head Constables are working and 191 posts are vacant. It has been stated that in light of the huge vacancy in District Barabanki it is not possible to transfer any more Head Constables out of the said District and accordingly it is stated that it is neither in the interest of the administration nor public interest to accede to the request made by the petitioner and consequently have rejected the said representation. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner suffers from disability and the respondents should have sympathetically considered the case of the petitioner. In support of her submissions a supplementary affidavit has been filed indicating that the petitioner is 90 per cent disabled. It is noticed that the said certificate was issued on 9.6.2015 and despite the said disability the petitioner has been performing to the full satisfaction of the respondents in District Barabanki. It is noticed that undoubtedly the petitioner is a person with disabilities but there is no mention in the entire writ petition as to what is the problem which is faced by the petitioner on account of his disability while working in District Barabanki. There is further no averment that the petitioner is undergoing any treatment at any particular place pertaining to his disability and accordingly, we do not find any close connection or nexus between his disability and his place of posting. It is further noticed that the representation dated 8.4.2024 which has been decided by the respondents on 29.1.2025 there is no mention with regard to disability of the petitioner and accordingly the respondents have not considered the difficulty faced by the petitioner on account of his disability. Once the petitioner himself did not take the plea of disability, this Court does not find any infirmity in the impugned order whereby the aspect which has been raised by the petitioner has not considered. 6. For the aforesaid reasons, this Court does not find any infirmity in the impugned order. 7. However, it is provided that in case the petitioner is facing any particular handicap because of his disability being posted at Barabanki, it shall always be open for him to bring this difficulty to the notice of the superior officers. In case, any such representation is made the same shall be considered in accordance with law. 8. Subject to aforesaid observation, the petition is dismissed. (Alok Mathur, J.) Order Date :- 28.2.2025 RKM. Digitally signed by :- RAKESH KUMAR MAURYA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench