Uttarakhand High Court
Dr. Umesh Chandra Bhatt @ Umesh ... vs State Of Uttarakhand & Ors on 21 March, 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
AT NAINITAL
Writ Petition (S/B) No. 145 of 2022
Dr. Umesh Chandra Bhatt @ Umesh Bhatt .........Petitioner
-Versus-
State of Uttarakhand & Ors. .......Respondents
Present:
Mr. Tapan Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Mr. S.S. Cahuhan, learned Dy. Advocate General for the
State/respondent nos. 1 to 4.
Mr. Yogesh Kumar Pacholia, learned counsel for the respondent
no.5.
Date of hearing : 21.03.2022
Coram: Sri S.K. Mishra, ACJ.
Sri R.C. Khulbe, J.
Upon hearing the learned counsel for the parties, this Court made the
following judgment: (Per: Sri S.K.Mishra, ACJ.)
The present petitioner prays for a writ of Certiorari
and also Mandamus quashing the transfer order dated
07.01.2022 issued by respondent no. 1, only with
regard to the petitioner, whereby the petitioner has
been transferred from Veterinary Hospital Roorkee,
District Haridwar, to Veterinary Hospital Chailusain,
Pauri and respondent no. 5 has been transferred from
Veterinary Hospital Chailusain, Pauri to Veterinary
Hospital Roorkee, District Haridwar.
2. The record reveals that the petitioner is working
for the last four and half years in Roorkee and he has
been transferred to Pauri i.e. accessible area to remote
area.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
as per Section 7 of the Uttarakhand Annual Transfer for
Public Servants Act, 2017 (hereinafter referred to as
the Transfer Act, 2017) the transfer is bad. However,
we take note of the exact words of the said sections
which reads as follows:-
"7. There shall be following norms for compulsory
transfer from accessible areas to remote areas;
namely:-
(a) The employees, who is posted for 04 years or more
at present place of posting in accessible area shall
be compulsorily transferred subject to the number
of vacancies available and anticipated under section
10 in remote area;
(b) The employees, who are working for less than 04
years at present place of posting in accessible area
but during whole service period have served in
accessible are for more than 10 years, shall also be
compulsorily transferred from accessible area to
remote area subject to availability of
vacancies/posts in remote area as above:
Provided that for the counting of total service period
in accessible are the proviso of definition of
accessible area given in Appendix specified in section
3 of the Act shall also be taken into consideration;
(c) The employee being transferred to remote areas
from accessible areas shall compulsorily be
transferred to accessible area again on completion
of minimum period prescribed for posting in remote
areas and the date of their reliving from remote
areas shall be clearly mentioned in their transfer
order also;
(d) The employees under following categories shall
exempted from compulsorily transfer from
accessible area to remote area; namely:-
(i) Senior employees
(ii) Such employees who have already
completed minimum 10 years service in
remote areas, and;
(iii) The employees seriously ill/disabled
under section 3 and who submit a
certificate from competent authority.
(iv) Such spouse whose only son/daughter is
included in definition of disability;
(v) Spouse of employees posted in military
and Para military force.
4. It is apparent from the record that he is covered
by the Clause (a) of Section 7 of the Transfer Act,
2017. It provides that who is posted for 04 years or
more at present place of posting in accessible area shall
be compulsorily transferred subject to the number of
vacancies available and anticipated under Section 10 in
remote area.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioner further
submits that the transfer is in violation of Section 23 of
the said Act which provides for the general transfers in
each year. In fact a time table has been provided but in
our considered opinion, the time table is only directory
and it is always not possible to adhere to a strict time
table in the exigency of public service. Learned counsel
for the petitioner also submits that as per the covering
judgment, in the case of Nikhilesh Ojha Vs. State of
Uttarakhand & others passed in Writ Petition (S/B) No.
300 of 2018, the transfer is bad in law.
6. We are of the opinion that the order passed in the
aforesaid case is distinguishable on factual aspect,
hence, not applicable to the present case.
7. In that view of the matter, we are of the view that
since transfer is an incidence of service and coupled
with the fact that the petitioner has been serving for
the last four and half years in a accessible area i.e.
Roorkee and has been transferred to Veterinary
Hospital Chailusain, Pauri, the transfer is in interest of
justice as well as exigency of administration. The use of
the expression "compulsorily" in Section 7 of the Act,
leads us to the conclusion that the impugned transfer
requires no interference.
8. Hence, the writ petition is dismissed being devoid
of merit.
9. Urgent certified copy of this order be supplied to
the learned counsel for the parties, as per Rules.
(Ramesh Chandra Khulbe, J.) (Sanjaya Kumar Mishra, ACJ.)
PV
