Hon’ble Rajan Roy, J.—Heard.

2. Shri Shukla, learned Standing Counsel submits on the basis of instructions that only for 6 months the petitioner has been attached to Moradabad as the compassionate appointment proposed at the said place has got delayed, though the same is expected to be made within 1 month.

3. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the order is actuated by malice, but, as the person against whom it is being alleged has not been arrayed in the writ petition in person, therefore the Court declines to consider this aspect.

4. The permissibility of such transfer of Group D employees in view of Rule 21 (3) of the U.P. Police Group D Employees Service Rules 2009 fell for consideration before this Court in writ petition Nos. 3800 (SS) of 2015 as also 6525 (SS) of 2015 wherein after considering the amendment of 2014 the Court found that Group D employees appointed to a post for a particular district or the P.A.C. Battalion or Unit shall not be transferred to any other establishment in normal course. Under special circumstances i.e. administrative ground or self request a Group ‘D’ employee may be transferred by competent Police Establishment Board. As explained therein, transfers are made on three grounds - (1) Public interest, (2) Administrative grounds, and (3) On request. ‘Public Interest’ includes administrative need and exigencies. Administrative ground, as normally understood and as used in practice implies some complaint regarding the conduct and behaviour, pendency of enquiry or same being proposed on account of some complaint etc. Petitioner has not made any request for his transfer nor has it been made on administrative ground.

5. Shri Shukla tried to overcome the difficulty posed by the said Rule by saying that it is merely an attachment for a particular period and not transfer, however this contention is not acceptable for the reason the object of the Rule is that Group D employee being low paid should not be transferred from an establishment, elsewhere, as, it will entail financial and other hardships which cannot be borne by such employees, therefore the attachment of the petitioner who is a low paid employee for 6 months to Moradabad is also contrary to the object of the said Rule and in no way different from a transfer except that it is only for 6 months, as, all the hardships entailing thereto are bound to occur. The distance of Moradabad from Lucknow is more than 300 kilometres which is substantial. Moreover it is a question of impermissibility of the said action in view of the aforesaid Rule as explained in the judgements referred hereinabove.

6. The term ‘Unit’ has been defined in Rule 3(m) to mean various branches of Police organization like Criminal Investigation Department, Anti-Terrorist Squad, Special Task Force, Special Investigation Team, Intelligence, Security, Anti-Corruption Organization etc. The petitioner is a Group D employee in the Intelligence Department which is a Unit as per Rule 21(3). Except under special circumstances he cannot be transferred to another establishment. The word ‘establishment’ has been used in the aforesaid Rule in contradistinction to the term ‘unit’ mentioned therein. Considering the object of the Rule it obviously means ‘place or office’ in the ‘Unit’ where the person is posted. Any other understanding and interpretation of the said term would lead to a situation where a Group D employee posted in a particular district will not be transferred to another district, except under special circumstances mentioned therein, but, a Group D employee working in other branches of the Police, such as, Intelligence etc. could be transferred from one district to another, which is certainly not the intent of the Rule and such an understanding would not only be contrary to its object, but, would also be irrational and discriminatory as it would amount to treating equals as unequals. It being so the attachment of the petitioner for a period o