Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:45645 Court No. - 8 Case :- WRIT - A No. - 8826 of 2025 Petitioner :- Shailendra Singh (Pno-062810669) Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Of Home Lko. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Anupam Shukla,Dr. Sandeep Mishra Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. Hon'ble Manish Mathur,J. 1. Heard learned counsel for petitioner and learned State Counsel appearing on behalf of opposite parties. 2. Petition has been filed challenging order dated 17.06.2023 so far as it relates to petitioner whereby he was transferred. Also under challenge is relieving order dated 07.02.2025. 3. It has been submitted that it is quite evident from the relieving order that it has been passed after almost two years of the transfer order which was notified on 17.06.2023. He has also placed reliance on circular dated 25.11.2020 which provides that in case relieving has not taken place within one one year from the date of transfer order, such a transfer order is required to be annulled/ cancelled and fresh transfer orders to be effected. He has also placed reliance on paragraphs 5, 23 of the Police Regulations which is in the same aspect. 4. This Court has already considered this issue in Writ Petition No.28779 of 2021 in the following manner: "Heard Shri Anupam Shukla, learned Counsel for the petitioner and learned State Counsel for the opposite parties. The transfer order was passed on 14.01.2021. Now, after more than ten months the petitioner is sought to be relieved by the order dated 29.11.2021. This Court has already considered this issue in the Writ Petition No. 26462 (S/S) of 2016 which has been decided on 11.11.2016 in the following terms:- "Heard learned Counsel for the parties. All the writ petitions have been clubbed together as the issue involved in these petitions is the same as to whether the authority was justified in relieving the petitioners after two years of the transfer order having been passed. The transfer order in all cases were passed in the year 2014, inspite of it, on account of administrative exigencies, the need for adequate number of personnel at Lucknow, which is the State capital, they could not be relieved. Normally considering the lapse of time the appropriate course for the respondents was to re-consider the matter and pass a fresh order of transfer as has been held by this Court in the judgment dated 06.07.2016 passed in writ petition no. 15148 (S/S) of 2016 which has been followed by a co- ordinate bench in writ petition no. 15961 (S/S) of 2016, therefore only for this reason while granting liberty to the respondent to have a fresh look at the matter and pass a fresh order expeditiously say within a period of 2 weeks, the impugned orders are hereby quashed. All the writ petitions stand disposed of in the aforesaid terms." Learned State Counsel was unable to demonstrate any distinction between the petitioner's case and that of Writ Petition No. 26462 (S/S) of 2016, as also in the case of SI Surendra Kumar Dwivedi and others Vs. State of U.P. and others, Writ Petition No. 31879 (S/S) of 2018. Accordingly on the same analogy this writ petition is also disposed of quashing the impugned order, however, with liberty to the opposite parties to pass a fresh order of transfer, if exigency of service so requires, in accordance with law." 5. Accordingly, in view of the same analogy which is clearly applicable upon the present facts and circumstances of the case, the impugned orders dated 17.06.2023 and 07.02.2025 are hereby quashed by issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari granting liberty to opposite parties to pass fresh orders of transfer, if exigencies of service so requires in accordance with law. 6. Resultantly, petition succeeds and is allowed at the admission stage itself. Parties to bear their own costs. Order Date :- 6.8.2025 Subodh/- Digitally signed by :- SUBODH KUMAR SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench