Uttarakhand High Court
WPSS/690/2021 on 24 June, 2021
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.690 of 2021
Hon'ble Sharad Kumar Sharma, J.
(Via video conferencing).
Mr. Sumit Singh, Advocate, for the
petitioner.
Mr. Narain Dutt, Brief Holder, for the
State of Uttarakhand.
The grievance raised by the petitioner in
the present writ petition is as against the
impugned order dated 11.04.2021, which has
been passed by the Director Panchayati Raj, by
virtue of which, the services of the petitioner
has been attached to SPRC, Tehri Garhwal.
The contention of the petitioner before
this Court is that this mode of attachment is
deprecated by the various Government Orders,
which has been issued by the State, from time
to time. He further argued that the order of
attachment cannot be taken as to be a substitute
for transfer, to override the provisions
contained under the Transfer Act of 2017, and
particularly, the embargo, which has been
created for transfers pertaining to the senior
employees, as defined under Section 3(h) of the
Transfer Act. He further submits that, it is
hardly two years and six months of his services
left with the petitioner till he attain the age of
superannuation and hence, in these particular
contingencies, and also on account of the
prevalent Covid-19 pandemic situation, where
the transfer year has been declared as to be a
"Zero Transfer Year" by the State, the
attachment ought not to have made, and
resorted to as a substitute to transfer of services.
Raising his grievance, the petitioner has
filed the representation on 15.04.2021, before
the respondent no.2, and the same is still
pending consideration and no decision has been
taken on it, as such.
It would not be out of place to mention
that the preference of representation as against
the order, which the petitioner reads it as to be
in paralence to an order of transfer, in the light
of the judgment of the Central Administrative
Tribunal in O.A. No.201 of 1999, "R.P. Nag
Vs. Union of India", the representation of the
petitioner would fall to be a statutory
representation under the provisions of the
Transfer Act of 2017.
In that eventuality, while disposing of the
present writ petition directing the respondent
no.2, to take a decision on the representation of
the petitioner within a period of one month,
from the date of service of the certified copy of
this judgment.
However, it is made clear that for a
period of one month or till decision is taken on
the representation, the order of attachment
dated 11.04.2021, would not be given effect to.
(Sharad Kumar Sharma, J.)
24.06.2021
NR/
