HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.

NAVEEN RAO

W.P.No.23779 of 2020 and W.P.No.2481 of 2021

Date:16.02.2021

Between:
Mohd.Mahaboob S/o.Late M.A.Nabi,
Aged about 51 years, Head Constable-7776,
Traffic Falaknama, attached to CAR Head quarters,
Hyderabad.
…..Petitioner

And
The Commissioner of Police,
Hyderabad City, Hyderabad and others.
…..Respondents

The Court made the following:

 2

HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.NAVEEN RAO

W.P.No.23779 of 2020 and W.P.No.2481 of 2021

COMMON ORDER:

Heard learned counsel for petitioner and Sri M.V.Rama Rao,

learned Special Government Pleader for respondents.

2. Petitioner was appointed as police constable on 13.12.1989,

promoted as Head constable on 27.11.2014 in which capacity he is

working as on today. Petitioner was posted to Traffic Police

Station, Falaknuma on 11.11.2019. While working in the said

police station, by proceedings dated 25.09.2020 petitioner was

attached to CAR head-quarters on administrative grounds. This

order of attachment is challenged in writ petition no.23779 of

2020. In writ petition no. 2481 of 2021 petitioner challenges order

of transfer dated 15.01.2021 transferring him to civil police. As

the issue in both writ petitions concerns transfer of petitioner, the

writ petitions are disposed of by this common order.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that petitioner

was working as Head constable in traffic police station w.e.f.

11.11.2019. He is entitled to continue in the said police station for

three years and therefore, his transfer within eight months of

posting there is ex-facie illegal. According to learned counsel for

petitioner, transfer is not made for any administrative reasons or

as part of organizing the police force, but it was effected as a

punitive measure, based on anonymous complaint made against

Inspector of Police and petitioner. He further submits that as Head

 3

Constable working in Traffic Police, he was drawing 30% of his

basic pay as Pollution Allowance and same is deprived on account

of his transfer, apparently even before he could complete his

tenure depriving him his allowance. Therefore, transfer is vitiated

on two grounds. Firstly, it was made within one year of posting

abruptly disturbing him and posting to CAR on account of false

complaint and secondly, it deprived special allowance to the

petitioner.

4. As fairly submitted by learned counsel for petitioner, there is

no prescribed tenure in the police force and person working in the

police force can be transferred at any time in the interest of

administration. Thus, contention of learned counsel for petitioner

against transfer on the ground that he had not completed one year

of service merits no consideration. Ordinarily, tenure of posting is

assured to an employee to ensure that on account of frequent

transfer no disturbance/inconvenience is caused to employee and

his family by transferring employee from one place to another

place. Frequent transfers do cause hardship to family members

and children who are pursing education. These general conditions

are not applicable to police force. There is no assured tenure in

police service. However, in the case of petitioner, even that reason

is not attracted, as he is transferred within the city from one office

to another office. Further, order of transfer does not refer to any

alleged misconduct as sought to be contended by petitioner. It is

 4

innocuous order. It is not a transfer as a punitive measure or on

the ground of misconduct and no stigma is attached by the order.

5. Be that as it may, by proceedings dated 15.01.2021

petitioner is transferred to civil police. Therefore, the very

contention is no more available to the petitioner.

6. In W.P No. 2481 of 2021 learned counsel for petitioner

repeated the same contentions as urged in WP.No.23779 of 2020

with reference to his transfer even before completion of three years.

He further contends that by transferring him to civil police from

traffic police, petitioner is deprived of 30% allowance provided by

the Government while working in traffic police service.

7. By transferring petitioner to civil police, his preliminary

grievance against posting him in CAR head-quarters is now

answered. He is working as head Constable. There are no

separate cadres for the civil and traffic police. Depending upon the

administrative requirements, the police personnel are shifted from

traffic to civil and civil to traffic. Thus by transferring the

petitioner away from traffic to civil, his service conditions are not

affected. In fact petitioner was working in civil police from

2014-2019 before his transfer to the traffic police in November,

2019.

8. With reference to special allowance, Government issued

orders in G.O.Rt.No.88, Home (Budget) Department, dated

20.01.2016 responding to the request made to the Director General

 5

of Police on the problems faced by police force working in traffic

police on account of increasing levels of air pollution, noise

pollution and other kinds of pollutions causing health problems to

the traffic police. Since someone has to work in traffic to regulate

the ever increasing traffic in the city, as there is no other

mechanism to the Government to regulate traffic, except employing

the police personnel physically, Government thought it fit to

compensate the police personnel working in the traffic police by

giving them 30% allowance on the basic pay, which is called as

“Pollution Allowance”. Thus the allowance provided in

G.O.Rt.No.88 is special allowance meant to be paid to the police

personnel working in traffic as long as they work in traffic, having

regard to the health hazards traffic police face, at least to

compensate for the health problems they face. Thus, the pollution

allowance is paid as long as Head Constable works in Traffic

Police. There is no vested right to continue in Traffic Police and

claim special allowance. The claim of the petitioner defeats the

very object of the ‘Pollution allowance’. There is no merit in the

complaint that petitioner ought not to have been shifted out by the

traffic police as it deprived him 30% allowance provided by the

G.O.Rt.No.88, dated 20.01.2016.

9. It is clearly discernible from the precedent decisions that in

matters of transfer, scope of judicial review is limited, and High

Court should not interfere with an order of transfer lightly, unless

the transfer is vitiated either by mala fidies or on the ground of

 6

infraction of any professed norm or principle; only limited judicial

scrutiny can be undertaken either at the interim stage or final

stage; transfer is an incidence of service, implicit as an essential

condition of service; no employee has vested right to remain posted

at a place of his/her choice; at times, several imponderables

requiring formation of subjective opinion may be involved; realistic

approach is to leave to the wisdom of hierarchical superiors; the

wheels of administration should be allowed to run smoothly;

Courts do not substitute their own decision in the matters of

transfer; there are no judicially manageable standards for

scrutinizing the transfers; Courts lack necessary expertise for

personnel management; in public interest, transfers involving

public services have to be best left to the concerned authorities;

writ Court cannot sit as appellate forum to consider transfer

matters; guidelines do not have statutory force; guidelines do not

confer legally enforceable right; even if an order of transfer is

passed in violation of executive instructions or orders, Court

should not interfere; affected party should approach higher

authorities; Court should not interfere if transfer is made to

equivalent post without any adverse consequence on the service

prospects. [ Union of India and other vs. S.L.Abbas1; Shilpi

Bose vs. State of Bihar2; Rajendra Singh and others Vs. State

of Utter Pradesh and others3; Airports Authority of India vs.

1
(1993) 4 SCC 357
2
(1991) Supp (2) SCC 659
3
(2009) 15 SCC 178
 7

Rajeev Ratan Pandey4; and Bank of India v. Jagjit Singh

Mehta5.]

10. From the proposition of law as laid down in several

precedent decisions, it is manifest that the Court cannot go into

intricacies of the cadre management and posting of the employees,

particularly in police force; there can be several imponderables

requiring formation of a subjective opinion and Court cannot go

into those administrative issues in exercise of power of judicial

review. In any service, there can be competing claims/aspirations

and the cadre controlling authority is the best judge to

accommodate competing claims and organize his cadres. It is

appropriate to note that no mala fides are attributed against any

officer.

11. I therefore, do not see any merit in the writ petitions and

accordingly, dismissed. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any,

shall stand closed. No order as to costs.

____________________
P. NAVEEN RAO, J

16th day February, 2021

Nvl/ tvk

4
(2009) 8 SCC 337
5
(1992) 1 SCC 306
 8

HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.NAVEEN RAO

W.P.No.23779 of 2020 and W.P.No.2481 of 2021

Date:16.02.2021
 9

Nvl/tvk