Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:7825 Court No. - 18 Case :- WRIT - A No. - 3498 of 2024 Petitioner :- Mahendra Kumar Rai Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. Of Home U.P. Lko. And Another Counsel for Petitioner :- Om Prakash Misra Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. Hon'ble Manish Kumar Nigam,J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for State- respondents and perused the record. 2. This petition has been filed for the following relief: "I. Issue a writ or direction in the nature of Certiorari to quash the impugned order dated 02.04.2024 passed by the opposite party no. 2 as contained in annexure no. 1 to the writ petition in the interest of justice. II. Issue a writ or direction in nature of mandamus commanding the opposite parties to transfer the petitioner to Civil Police Original Cadre from the Intelligence Department, Lucknow, Uttar Pradesh in pursuance to the government order dated 19.06.2019 issued by the State Government of Uttar Pradesh in the interest of justice." 3. By the order dated 02.04.2024 (annexure No. 1 to this writ petition), request of the petitioner for sending back the petitioner to his parent department i.e. Civil Police from Intelligence Department in which he is presently working, has been rejected. 4. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner while working as Sub Inspector in Civil Police had been sent to Intelligence Department on his request. The posting of such person is governed by government order dated 19.06.2019, a copy of which is annexure 2 to the petition. 5. Placing reliance on paragraphs 2(3)(gha) and 2(6) of the government order dated 19.06.2019 the argument of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the said government order categorically provides that the tenure of an Inspector sent to the Intelligence Department would be for a period of six years. Prior to the said period coming to an end an option would be taken from the personnel concerned as to whether they want to continue in the Intelligence Department and in case an option would be given for continuance they would be continued but in case any person wants to revert back to his parent department then the authorities would immediately act upon the same. 6. It has been contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that from the order impugned, it is apparent that on 31.12.2023, petitioner has completed 6 year, 4 months & 1 day and today, he has completed 7 years, 5 months and 7 days in the Intelligence Department and has rendered service for a period prescribed in the Government Order dated 19.06.2019. 7. Learned Standing Counsel on the other hand submitted that since there is shortage of personnel in the Intelligence Department, therefore, it was not found feasible to send back the petitioner to his parent department. It has been further submitted by learned Standing Counsel that personnel senior to the petitioner are still working with the Intelligence Department and the petitioner is at serial no. 18 in the seniority list. 8. Learned Standing Counsel relied upon paragraph no. 18 of the counter affidavit wherein operative portion of Writ A No. 16291 of 2018 (Arvind Kumar v. State of U.P. and others) has been quoted which is as under: "Pursuant to the previous orders passed in this petition, learned standing counsel has obtained instructions from the Office of Director General of Police, U.P., Lucknow, as per which, an order of transfer has been passed in favour of the petitioner on 20.08.2018. In such view of the matter, no further grievance survives to the petitioner. Before concluding, it would be appropriate to observe that the authorities shall maintain strict adherence to seniority, henceforth, in relieving the person from the Organization." 9. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that in case of Arvind Kumar v. State of U.P. referred in para no. 8 of the counter affidavit, the Court has not adjudicated on merits and has also not considered the Government Order dated 19.06.2019 as the order of transfer was passed in favour of the petitioner and the observations made therein will not be applicable to the present case. It is further contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the observations made in case of Arvind Kumar v. State of U.P. (supra) are not clear as it does not specify as to whether seniority in service or seniority in Intelligence Department has to be maintained. 10. Learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the judgment of this Court in Writ A No. 12714 of 2024, (Umesh Tiwari v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. Home Govt. U.P. Lko. and 4 others), decided on 03.01.2025, wherein identical matter was considered by this Court and after considering all the submissions raised by learned Standing Counsel, the order impugned was quashed and respondent no. 2 was directed to pass fresh orders on the claim of the petitioner for sending him back to the parent department keeping in view the Government Order dated 19.06.2019 within six weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of the order. 11. Since the controversy involved in the presence case is similar to the case of Umesh Tiwari (Supra), therefore, this writ petition is allowed. 12. The order impugned dated 02.04.2024, passed by respondent no. 2, is hereby quashed. 13. The respondent no. 2 is directed to pass fresh order on the claim of the petitioner for sending him back to the parent department i.e. the Civil Police keeping in view the government order dated 19.06.2019. Let such an order be passed within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. Order Date :- 6.2.2025 Ved Prakash (Manish Kumar Nigam,J.) Digitally signed by :- VED PRAKASH SHARMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench