Uttarakhand High Court
Rajendra Chand Rajwar vs State Of Uttarakhand And Others on 18 August, 2025
Author: Ravindra Maithani
Bench: Ravindra Maithani
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Writ Petition No.1357 of 2025 (S/S)
Rajendra Chand Rajwar ..........Petitioner
Vs.
State of Uttarakhand and others ............. Respondents
Present : Mr. Tarun Prakash Singh Takuli, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Narain Dutt, Standing Counsel for the State/respondent no.1.
Mr. Atul Bhatt, Central Government Standing Counsel for
respondent nos.2 and 3.
JUDGMENT
Hon'ble Ravindra Maithani, J. (Oral)
The challenge in this writ petition is made to the
Transfer Order dated 10.06.2025, by which, the petitioner has been
transferred from Pantnagar to Pithoragarh. Challenge is also made
to order dated 08.08.2025, issued by the respondent no.3, by
which, the representation given by the petitioner has been rejected.
2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the
record.
3. It is the case of the petitioner that he was initially
appointed on the post of Laskar on 27.11.1997 in the National
Cadet Corps. In the year 2010, the petitioner was promoted to the
post of Senior Clerk and is posted at Nainital. In the year 2011, he
was transferred from Nainital to Pantnagar, District Udham Singh
Nagar on mutual consent basis. This year, eligibility list for
compulsory transfer was to be made from accessible area to remote
area, in which, the petitioner is at Serial No.25. The petitioner has
already spent 05 years and 03 days in the remote area, but there
are many candidates in the list, who have not spent even a single
day in the remote area. They have been given benefit and excluded
for being transfer this year. Once transfers were made, the
petitioner did file a writ petition bearing WPSS No.1296 of 2025,
Rajendra Chand Rajwar vs. State of Uttarakhand and others ("the
first petition"), which was decided with the directions to the
respondents to decide the representation given by the petitioner. By
the impugned order dated 08.08.2025, the representation of the
petitioner has been rejected.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that
the petitioner has no issue with the transfer in any place. But,
there is some discrimination, which is being made with some
employees; there are candidates at Serial Nos.27, 29, 30, 31, 32
and 33 of the list of the persons eligible for compulsory transfers,
who have not served even a single day in the remote areas, whereas
the petitioner has already served 05 years and 03 months. He
would submit that these employees after promotions were not sent
to the remote areas, whereas they ought to have been sent under
Section 19 of the Uttarakhand Annual Transfer for Public Servants
Act, 2017 ("the Act"). He would submit that although Section 19 of
the Act, give a transition period which has been extended to the
2026 now. But, these persons cannot get benefit to avoid their
posting in the remote areas.
5. Learned State Counsel would submit that the transfers
have been made in accordance with the rules. He submits that in
accordance with Section 17 of the Act, the list of employees has
been prepared in the descending order as per their length of service
rendered in accessible area and in that list the petitioner has
placed at Serial No.25. The other employees, who are at Serial
Nos.27, 29, 30, 31, 32 and 33 are also due for transfers, but they
have spent less period in the accessible areas, therefore, they are
appearing lower in the list of compulsory transfer. It is submitted
that Section 19 of the Act has no application at this stage; whatever
exemption an employee is entitled under Section 19 of the Act, may
not be denied to him. It is submitted that the respondents have not
considered the candidates at Serial Nos.27, 29, 30, 31, 32 and 33
to the list of compulsory transfers, for their transfers for the reason
that in a year, a particular number of the employees are to be
transferred. If these employees are not transferred this year, next
year they may be at the top of the list for the employees of 'eligible
employees' for compulsory transfer. It does not cause
discrimination to the petitioner.
6. When the first petition was taken up for hearing on
06.08.2025, this Court has observed, "The Court wanted to know
from learned counsel for the petitioner as to why this Court should
interfere in a transfer order, which has been passed on 10.06.2025;
why the writ petition should be entertained after such a long
lapse?" On that date, thereafter, learned counsel for the petitioner
has submitted that the petitioner has already given a
representation to the respondents. Therefore, the respondents may
be directed to consider the representation. It is, therefore, the
respondents were directed to consider the representation given by
the petitioner. The representation has now been rejected.
7. For compulsory transfer from accessible area to remote
area, a list is to be prepared according to Section 17 of the Act. It is
prepared in descending order beginning from the employees
spending longest time in the accessible area during the whole
service period and, thereafter the transfers are effected. The
petitioner is in the list for compulsory transfer. He appears at Serial
No.25, as he has spent 22 years, 06 months and 1 day in the
accessible area. Accordingly, he has been transferred. Merely
because there are some persons in the list, who have not spent any
time in the accessible area, does not give a cause to the petitioner
to challenge the transfer list. The petitioner has been transferred in
accordance with the provisions of the Act. Moreover, the transfer
order was passed on 10.06.2025 and for the first time, it was
challenged in the first petition on 06.08.2025. It is much delayed
also. The challenge to transfer at such a belated stage is also not
permissible. Even it has not been shown that the transfer of the
petitioner has been made in violation of any provisions of the Act.
Accordingly, there is no reason to interfere in the instant petition
and the petition deserves to be dismissed at the stage of admission
itself.
8. The petition is dismissed, in limine.
(Ravindra Maithani, J.)
18.08.2025
Sanjay
SANJAY Digitally signed by SANJAY KANOJIA
DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT
OF UTTARAKHAND,
2.5.4.20=e50e50b49596520698eff87e0a08bbd504686df4d1afc60
KANOJIA
f54a287831dec46fe, postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND,
serialNumber=26EEB7122ED0DD23233A255DD8EC450A84B515
A087CAEFD1B3179A7DEAE40699, cn=SANJAY KANOJIA
Date: 2025.08.19 15:22:21 +05'30'
