WPSS/742/2021
2021 Latest Caselaw 2166 UK

                   Office Notes,
                reports, orders or
                 proceedings or
sl. No   Date                                    COURT'S OR JUDGES'S ORDERS
                  directions and
                Registrar's order
                 with Signatures
                                     WPSS No.742 of 2021
                                     Hon'ble Sharad Kumar Sharma, J.

(Via video conferencing).

Mr. Amar Murti Shukla, Advocate, for the petitioner.

Mr. I.P. Kohli, Standing Counsel, for the State of Uttarakhand.

The petitioner contends that after his initial appointment with the respondents as a Junior Engineer on 11.11.2013, he was offered with an appointment and was posted at Nalkup Khand, Ramnagar, District Nainital and he had joined the services, and worked in the said capacity till he was transferred and attached on 17.11.2013 to Nalkup Khand III, Kaladhungi, Region Kotabag, District Nainital.

Subsequently by virtue of an order passed in the month of July, 2014, by the respondents, the services of the petitioner, as a Junior Engineer was attached to District Champawat, and thereafter to Berinag, District Pithoragarh, where he continued to discharge his duties in the said capacity, till 2018.

The grievance of the petitioner is that after the encroachment of the Transfer Act, the respondents have classified the places, as to be "Durgam" and "Sugam" for the purposes of enforcing the provisions of the Transfer Act, and as a consequence of the classifications of "Sugam" and "Durgam" of places which has been made, its impact is that all the places, where the petitioner has already worked has been shown to be "Sugam" now, hence he apprehends that once again he may be placed and posted at a durgam area.

Raising his grievances that those places are to be treated as "Durgam" and the classification, made at subsequent stage, those places may not be treated as to be the place of service wherein the petitioner has worked is "Sugam".

The petitioner has represented his grievances before the respondent No.3, by way of filing a representation on 18.04.2021. The said representation of the petitioner is still pending consideration, and no decision has been taken by them, on the same.

Without venturing into the merits of the matter, and considering the relief sought for in the present writ petition, this writ petition is being disposed of with a request to the respondent No.3, to take an appropriate decision on the representation of the petitioner dated 18.04.2021, within a period of six weeks from the date of presentation of a certified copy of this judgment.

Subject to the above directions, the writ petition stands disposed of.

However, it is also clarified that the respondent No.3, while deciding the representation of the petitioner dated 18.04.2021, would provide an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner.

(Sharad Kumar Sharma, J.) 01.07.2021

NR/