[Cites 9, Cited by 0]
Uttarakhand High Court
Suresh Ram vs State Of Uttarakhand & Others on 19 December, 2025
Author: Manoj Kumar Tiwari
Bench: Manoj Kumar Tiwari
2025:UHC:11428
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Writ Petition (S/S) No. 224 of 2025
Suresh Ram ... Petitioner
Versus
State of Uttarakhand & Others ... Respondents
With
Writ Petition (S/S) No. 1220 of 2024
Writ Petition (S/S) No. 1193 of 2024
Writ Petition (S/S) No. 1197 of 2024
Writ Petition (S/S) No. 1207 of 2024
Writ Petition (S/S) No. 1217 of 2024
Writ Petition (S/S) No. 1225 of 2024
Writ Petition (S/S) No. 1231 of 2024
Writ Petition (S/S) No. 1252 of 2024
Writ Petition (S/S) No. 1273 of 2024
Writ Petition (S/S) No. 1275 of 2024
Writ Petition (S/S) No. 1277 of 2024
Writ Petition (S/S) No. 1364 of 2024
Writ Petition (S/S) No. 1366 of 2024
Writ Petition (S/S) No. 1373 of 2024
Writ Petition (S/S) No. 226 of 2025
Writ Petition (S/S) No. 227 of 2025
Writ Petition (S/S) No. 231 of 2025
Writ Petition (S/S) No. 254 of 2025
Writ Petition (S/S) No. 255 of 2025
Writ Petition (S/S) No. 256 of 2025
Writ Petition (S/S) No. 261 of 2025
Writ Petition (S/S) No. 263 of 2025
Writ Petition (S/S) No. 264 of 2025
Writ Petition (S/S) No. 267 of 2025
Writ Petition (S/S) No. 268 of 2025
Writ Petition (S/S) No. 269 of 2025
Mr. Vinay Kumar, Mr. Sandeep Tiwari, Mr. R.C. Tamta, Mr. Shubhang
Dobhal, Mr. Yogesh Pandey, Mr. Digvijay Singh Bisht and Ms. Anannya
Jain (proxy counsel for Mr. Sandeep Kothari), Counsel for the
petitioners.
Mr. Narayan Datt, Standing Counsel, for the State.
JUDGMENT
Hon'ble Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J.
Since common questions of fact and law are
involved in these petitions, therefore, they are clubbed
together and are being heard & decided by a common
2025:UHC:11428
judgment. However, for the sake of brevity, facts of
Writ Petition (S/S) No. 224 of 2025 alone are being
considered and discussed.
2. Petitioners were appointed as Village
Panchayat Development Officer in Panchayati Raj
Department. Village Panchayat Development Officer is
a district cadre post, appointing authority whereof is
District Panchayati Raj Officer and they are not
transferable outside the district in which they are
appointed. Petitioners were transferred, on their
request, from one district to another by separate
orders, passed by Secretary, Panchayati Raj in the
month of November, 2023. Transfer orders passed by
Secretary, Panchayati Raj were cancelled by Director,
Panchayati Raj by a common order dated 3.7.2024.
Petitioners challenged the cancellation orders by filing
writ petitions. The main ground of challenge was that
since the order of transfer was passed by Secretary,
therefore, Director, Panchayati Raj, who is subordinate
to Secretary cannot cancel the order passed by his
superior authority. Interim orders were passed in the
writ petitions filed by petitioners challenging Director's
order and on the strength of those interim orders,
petitioners continued to serve at the places where they
were transferred. During pendency of the writ petition,
Secretary, Panchayati Raj passed another order on
21.2.2025, whereby the earlier orders of transfer,
passed in November 2023, were cancelled. Petitioners
thereafter filed another set of writ petitions challenging
the order passed by the Secretary on 21.2.2025.
2025:UHC:11428
3. Learned Counsel for the petitioners contend
that the order passed by Secretary on 21.2.2025 is in
teeth of the interim orders passed in favour of
petitioners in the earlier round of litigation. It is further
contended that the Secretary, while cancelling earlier
transfer orders, has not applied his mind
independently, as he has relied solely on the opinion of
the Director, Panchayati Raj and facts and
circumstances of each case are also not considered. It
is further contended that the Secretary has relied upon
certain provisions of The Uttarakhand Annual Transfer
For Public Servants Act, 2017 including Section
17(2)(e) and Section 27, which however are not
attracted in the present case. Petitioners contend that
since it is not a case of annual or routine transfer and
petitioners were transferred outside their cadre,
therefore, provisions of The Uttarakhand Annual
Transfer For Public Servants Act, 2017 have no
application to the case, thus, reliance on Section
17(2)(e) and Section 27 of the Act for supporting the
cancellation orders, is misplaced.
4. Per contra, learned State Counsel submits
that Village Panchayat Development Officers are
member of district cadre post and their services are
not transferable outside the district. He submits that
persons, who were appointed in hill districts, were
desperately seeking transfer to plain districts and
because of repeated representations made by such
persons, State Government had to issue instructions
on 10.5.2023 asking the district level authorities not to
forward request for change of cadre/transfer outside
2025:UHC:11428
the cadre, unless the case is covered by proviso to
Section 17(2)(e) of The Uttarakhand Annual Transfer
For Public Servants Act, 2017. He submits that Section
17(2)(e) of the Act permits cadre change/out of cadre
transfer of an employee only in case of marriage
between two employees or displacement of employee
due to acquisition of properties for development
projects/natural calamity. Learned State Counsel thus
submits that since petitioners' case was not covered by
proviso to Section 17(2)(e) of The Uttarakhand Annual
Transfer For Public Servants Act, therefore, the orders
of transfer passed in their favour by the then Secretary
were legally unsustainable, therefore the competent
authority was justified in cancelling the transfer orders.
5. State has placed reliance upon The
Uttarakhand Annual Transfer for Public Servants Act,
2017 (Uttarakhand Act No. 01 of 2018). Section 6 of
the said Act enumerates three kinds of annual transfer,
which are as follows:-
(a) Compulsory transfer from accessible
area to remote area;
(b) Compulsory transfer from remote
area to accessible area; and
(c) Transfer on the basis of request.
6. Careful perusal of Section 6 of the Annual
Transfer Act would reveal that only three kinds of
transfer, enumerated in Section 6 would qualify to be
covered by the expression 'annual transfer'. Thus,
under the said Act, a Government Servant, after
completing prescribed length of service in accessible
2025:UHC:11428
area, may be transferred to a remote area or from
remote area to a accessible area within the cadre, as
per conditions of his service. Similarly, a Government
servant serving in a state level cadre may be
transferred on request from one district to another, as
per conditions of his service. Section 6 do not
contemplate cadre change/ out of cadre transfer of a
Government servant.
7. Admittedly, petitioners were appointed as
Village Panchayat Development Officer, which is a
district cadre post and anyone appointed in one district
is not liable to be transferred outside that district, as
per the conditions of service applicable to him. Thus,
the orders of transfer passed in respect of the
petitioners were not as per the service conditions
applicable to the post of Village Panchayat
Development Officer. The transfer orders were passed
by the State Government under its inherent powers,
which are available to every employer. Although,
proviso to Section 17 (2) (e) of the Transfer Act
permits cadre change/out of cadre transfer, however,
it is permissible only in case of (i) marriage between
two employees; (ii) displacement of employee due to
acquisition of properties for development projects; and
(iii) displacement of employee due to natural calamity,
and provides that the employee, who is permitted
cadre change/ transfer out of cadre, shall be treated as
junior most in the new cadre. Proviso to Section 17(2)
(e) further provides that approval of the committee
headed by Chief Secretary constituted under proviso to
Section 27(1) of the Transfer Act would be necessary.
2025:UHC:11428
8. From the scheme of the Transfer Act, it is
apparent that the Act deals with annual or routine
transfers, which are permissible under the applicable
Rules to government employees concerned. The only
exception to this is Section 17(2) (e), which permits
cadre change in three contingencies.
9. Since the case of the petitioners is not
covered by the contingencies mentioned in proviso to
Section 17 (2) (e) nor the transfers are referable to
Section 6, therefore, this Court has no hesitation in
holding that petitioners were transferred by the
Secretary, Panchayati Raj, by exercising the inherent
powers of the State Government, which are available
to every employer. The Transfer Act, 2017 although
covers the field, however, it does not take away the
right available as employer to the State Government,
of transferring a public servant in public interest or
administrative exigency, out of his cadre. The
Secretary, Panchayati Raj exercised that right on
behalf of the State Government, therefore, the transfer
orders passed by Secretary cannot be faulted only on
the ground that they were passed dehors the
provisions of Annual Transfer Act.
10. Having regard to the facts and circumstances
of the case and also the provisions of the Transfer Act,
2017, this Court is of the considered opinion that
provisions of Annual Transfer Act cannot be invoked
for cancelling the transfer orders passed in respect of
the petitioners, as the transfer orders were passed not
under the power available in the Transfer Act, but
2025:UHC:11428
under the inherent powers available to the State
Government.
11. Learned State Counsel also placed reliance
upon Section 27(1) of the Transfer Act and submitted
that without approval of the committee headed by the
Chief Secretary, cadre change or out of cadre transfer,
cannot be made. The said submission is bereft of
merit. Proviso to Section 17(2) (e) permits cadre
change only in three contingencies and the committee
headed by Chief Secretary can grant approval for
cadre change, only when any of the three
contingencies mentioned in proviso to Section 17 (2)
(e) is existing. Existence of one of the three
contingencies is a condition precedent for exercise of
power and the committee headed by the Chief
Secretary also cannot grant approval for cadre change
if that condition precedent is not fulfilled.
12. Having regard to the aforesaid legal position,
this Court has no hesitation in holding that the orders
of transfer passed in respect of the petitioners by the
then Secretary cannot be termed as violative of
provisions of Transfer Act. As discussed above,
provisions of Annual Transfer Act are not attracted in
case of cadre change/out of cadre transfer and the
Transfer Act do not prohibit the State Government
from transferring public servants outside the cadre
under its inherent powers as employer.
13. This Court, however, finds substance in the
submission made by learned State Counsel that
2025:UHC:11428
despite instructions issued by State Government on
10.05.2023, the proposal for transferring the Village
Panchayat Development Officers from one district to
another was not only entertained but allowed by
Secretary, Panchayati Raj, which according to learned
State Counsel is a serious matter and amounts to
defiance of Government Policy. State Counsel further
submits that due to these inter district transfers, acute
shortage of Village Panchayat Development Officers is
being faced in hill districts, as majority of them have
gone on transfer to plain districts and the
representation on the post given to reserved category
persons in different districts has also become skewed;
in some districts reservation in excess of prescribed
quota is available to certain category persons, while in
other districts reserved category candidates are not
adequately represented. He submits that there are
various other practical difficulties, which have arisen
on account of inter district transfer of Village
Panchayat Development Officers and if State is
permitted to adopt remedial measures, it will lead to
many more complications in future.
14. The orders of transfer passed by Secretary
on request made by petitioners although cannot be
legally faulted on the touchstone of Transfer Act, 2017,
however, this Court finds substance in the submission
made by learned State Counsel that the proposal for
transfer should not have been entertained by the
Secretary in the first place, in view of the directive
issued by the State Government on 10.05.2023. The
practical difficulties faced by the State Government
2025:UHC:11428
due to large scale inter district transfer also cannot be
lost sight of, as Village Panchayat Development
Officers serve at the ground level and any discrepancy
in their cadre is bound to adversely affect efficiency of
administration.
15. In view of the aforesaid discussion, the writ
petitions are allowed. The order dated 03.07.2024
passed by Director, Panchayati Raj and also the order
dated 21.02.2025 passed by Secretary, Panchayati Raj
are quashed and set aside. However, it shall be open
to the Secretary, Panchayati Raj to re-visit the issue of
inter district transfer of the petitioners and pass
necessary orders to strengthen administrative
efficiency in Panchayati Raj Department within three
months, after providing reasonable opportunity of
hearing to the petitioners.
(Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J.)
19.12.2025
Navin
NAVEEN CHANDRA
DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND,
2.5.4.20=3be23325146e76a0642bdf4943fb9046f487df006da82a131bb4e4403d3c0a15,
postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND,
serialNumber=18167EEFB5CA8CFFD421A103819DA875643AF56D653D095C6ED9A86DAAB2
1CE5, cn=NAVEEN CHANDRA
Date: 2025.12.24 13:54:52 +05'30'
