[Cites 1, Cited by 0]
Uttarakhand High Court
Anju vs State Of Uttarakhand And Others on 16 December, 2025
Author: Rakesh Thapliyal
Bench: Rakesh Thapliyal
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
AT NAINITAL
HON'BLE JUSTICE SRI RAKESH THAPLIYAL
16th December 2025
Writ Petition (S/S) No. 533 of 2025
Anju ............Petitioner
Versus
State of Uttarakhand and others .......Respondents.
With
Writ Petition (S/S) No. 53 of 2025
Bhawani Prasad Bijlwan ............Petitioner
Versus
State of Uttarakhand and others .......Respondents.
Counsel for the Petitioners: Mr. Bhagwat Mehra and Mr.
Niranjan Bhatt, learned counsel.
Counsel for the State: Mr. C.S. Rawat, learned. C.S.C.
Hon'ble Rakesh Thapliyal, J.
Apparently, the Act framed by the State i.e.
the Uttarakhand Annual Transfer for Public Servants
Act, 2017 appears to be arbitrary so far as it relates to
the classification of Sugam and Durgam areas.
Surprisingly, in this Act by virtue of Appendix 1, 2 and
3, three separate committees were constituted to
identify the places of Sugam and Durgam. In the entire
Act Sugam and Durgam infact has not been defined and
for that purposes by virtue of Appendix 1, 2 and 3,
three committees have been constituted. By virtue of
invoking the saving clause i.e. Section 27, another
circular was issued by the State on 19.03.2018 wherein
certain criteria has been prescribed to identify the
Sugam and Durgam places.
2. After having gone through with the circular, it
appears that it is very difficult for the committee to
identify the places for the purposes of classifying
Sugam and Durgam. On the previous date, when the
Secretary joined the proceedings through V.C., he
himself apprised to this Court that the department itself
is facing difficulty in classifying the places and large
numbers of government officials are being deputed only
for this purposes.
3. Be that as it may, learned counsel for the
petitioner apprised to this Court that the Uttarakhand
Annual Transfer for Public Servants Act, 2017 was
enacted in suppression of all the earlier Acts and the
Rules, despite this, they are categorizing the
institutions as Sugam and Durgam on the basis of 2013
Rules which has already been superseded by the Act of
2017. This fact has been denied by learned Chief
Standing Counsel, as the time framed for classification
of Sugam and Durgam has been specified in the
Circular dated 06.02.2018 and the same is in terms of
Section 23 of Annual Transfer Act, 2017. Mr. Rawat
pointed out that the transfer on the basis of Sugam
and Durgam classification by virtue of Uttarakhand
Annual Transfer for Public Servants Act, 2017 is not
under challenge in this petition on 10.01.2025.
4. The State of Uttarakhand was carved out
from the erstwhile State of U.P. on 09.11.2000,
keeping in view of the fact that entire area surrounded
by the hills and located at foot hills of the Himalayan
Mountain Ranges having international boundaries of
China (Tibet) in the North and Nepal in the East and
most of the districts out of 13 districts are in the hill
areas, now the question is what is the justification for
making such classification. On 13.02.2025, when this
matter was heard, the learned Chief Standing Counsel
fairly submitted that there are instances that two
institutions are located in the same village, same place
and same gram sabha but have been categorized as
Sugam and Durgam. It is very strange that two types
of institution located in one place have been
categorized to be located in Sugam and Durgam area
which itself reveals that the exercise done by the State
authority is completely a futile exercise. Mr. Bhagwat
Mehra also pointed out there are several institutions
which are located in the same place, same gram sabha,
same city but have been categorized to be located in
Sugam and Durgam area.
5. What is reveals from the Circular dated
06.02.2018 which in fact is the guidelines in order to
implement the Uttarakhand Annual Transfer for Public
Servants Act, 2017. The Committees as per Appendix
1, 2 and 3 of the Uttarakhand Annual Transfer for
Public Servants Act, 2017 that to identify the places as
Sugam and Durgam the need of the concerned
department has to be taken into consideration. The
question is how such classification can be made as per
the need of the department.
6. Mr. Niranjan Bhatt also placed before this
Court one another order of transfer passed by the
Director, Health Services dated 10.06.2025 whereby 9
Chief Pharmacists were transferred by invoking Rule
17(1)(a) of the Annual Transfer Act 2017. The learned
counsel for the petitioner submits that this order of
transfer was passed by the Director, Health Services in
flagrant violation of the order passed by this Court
dated 13.02.2025 whereby the respondents were
restrained from transferring any incumbent on the basis
of the classification of Sugam and Durgam. Certainly
passing of such types of transfer orders after restrain
order appears to be the contemptuous act on the part
of the official respondents. Since no such application
has been moved for initiating the contempt proceedings
by the petitioners, therefore, at this juncture this
aspect cannot be looked into but since the Chief
Standing Counsel is representing the State, so that he
may apprise the concerned officials not to misinterpret
the High Court's restrain order and they have to follow
it in letter and spirit. If there is any violation then it
appears to be a very serious issue and this Court will
not hesitate to initiate a contempt proceeding against
the officials concerned.
7. So far as the present issue is concerned
whether the transfer can be done on the basis of the
classification of Sugam and Durgam, no doubt the
Annual Transfer Act, 2017 has been enacted by the
legislature but something is missing in this Act. Since in
the entire Act there is no any description of Sugam and
Durgam and this task has been given to the
committees as per Appendix 1, 2 and 3 to identify the
places, the question is without identifying the places
like Sugam and Durgam whether the Transfer Act can
be implemented particularly Rule 17 (1)(a) of the Act.
8. Admittedly, there is no such classification
under the Act, however, Mr. C.S. Rawat, Chief Standing
Counsel, apprised this Court that the exercise was done
by the committees in terms of Appendix 1, 2 and 3 for
classifying the places as Sugam and Durgam and the
same is on the website of the department. The question
is whether such exercise has been done in other
department.
9. Let an affidavit be filed in this regard
positively within a week by the State with regard to the
exercise done by committees in terms of Appendix 1, 2
and 3 to examine whether the criteria as prescribed in
the Circular of 2018 has been followed by the
committees or not.
10. The learned Chief Standing Counsel further
placed reliance on the Division Bench Judgment dated
13.05.2019 passed in Writ Petition(S/B) No. 182 of
2019, Pratap Narain Negi and others vs. State of
Uttarakhand and others and submitted that the issue
with regard to the classification of Sugam and Durgam
has already been dealt with by the Division Bench and,
therefore, this aspect cannot be looked into in the
instant petition. The submissions as advanced by Mr.
Rawat are completely misconceived and outrightly
rejected for the simple reason that on perusal of the
judgement it reveals that the Division Bench has dealt
with the individual transfer and not the issue whether
such classification is permissible or not.
11. On the request of Mr. C.S. Rawat Chief
Standing Counsel, put up this case on 23.12.2025.
12. My earlier order dated 09.04.2025 is very
clear whereby respondents were permitted to transfer
in certain contingencies including the long tenure which
the respondents can examine on the basis of the period
which was rendered in the plain area like Dehradun,
Haridwar, Haldwani, Rudrapur, Ramnagar and Kotdwar
etc. Therefore, the respondents are free to transfer any
incumbent from one place to another place but not on
such classification of Sugam and Durgam.
__________________
RAKESH THAPLIYAL, J.
Nahid
