WPSB/111/2021
2021 Latest Caselaw 818 UK

       IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
                  AT NAINITAL

THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI RAGHVENDRA SINGH CHAUHAN
                             AND
         THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE ALOK KUMAR VERMA


                Writ Petition (S/B)No. 111 of 2021

                         10TH MARCH, 2021

 Between:

 Mukesh Kumar Dhumka.                                    ......Petitioner

 and


 Director, Department of Animal Husbandry Government of
 Uttarakhand, Dehradun and others        .....Respondents


 Counsel for the petitioner           :       Mr. Shakti Singh.

 Counsel for the respondents              :   Mr.     B.P.S.   Mer,
                                              Standing Counsel for
                                              the State/respondents.


 The Court made the following:

 JUDGMENT : (per Hon'ble The Chief Justice Sri Raghvendra Singh Chauhan)


             Petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated
 22.02.2021, whereby the petitioner's transfer order dated
 20.02.2021 has been cancelled.

 2.          The learned counsel for the petitioner submits
 that due to the impugned order, the petitioner is neither
 permitted to discharge his functions at the present place of
 posting, nor he is being posted to any other place.
 Therefore, the petitioner continues to exist in an animated
 suspension. Further, such a break in service would
 adversely affect the service record of the petitioner.
 Therefore, this Court should set aside the impugned order.
                                   2

3.         The position being taken by the learned counsel
for the petitioner is clearly untenable. In case, the
petitioner is not being posted to another place, it merely
means that the petitioner is being kept in "awaiting
posting   order"   (for   short       as   'A.P.O.').   Moreover,   a
distinction has been made between the "awaiting posting
order' and suspension. In "awaiting posting order" the
relationship between the employer and employee is not
suspended. Furthermore, while awaiting posting order, the
employee cannot be denied his rightful salary. In fact, the
rightful salary has to be paid, despite the fact that the
employee is not discharging any official duty. But, even in
such a situation, the power of an employer to take time to
decide as to where an employee's abilities and capacities
can be utilized to the fullest has to be sustained. Lastly,
the petitioner has misapprehension that the period spent
in "awaiting posting order" or as a A.P.O. would adversely
affect his service career. Since, A.P.O. is not by way of
punishment, but is only for administrative exigencies, the
A.P.O. period does not and cannot adversely affect the
service record of an employee.

4.         Since, it would be in the interest of the
Department to immediately decide the place of posting of
the petitioner, the Department is directed to take a
decision with regard to the posting of the petitioner as
expeditiously as possible.

5.         With these directions, the writ petition stands
disposed of.

                       _____________________________
                       RAGHVENDRA SINGH CHAUHAN, C.J.


                                       ___________________
                                       ALOK KUMAR VERMA, J.

Dt: 10th March, 2021 Mamta