Uttarakhand High Court
Unknown vs State Of Uttarakhand And Others on 13 November, 2025
2025:UHC:10066-DB
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
THE HON'BLE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. G. NARENDAR
AND
THE HON'BLE JUSTICE MR. SUBHASH UPADHYAY
Writ Petition (S/B) No. 476 of 2025
13th November, 2025
Deep Chandra Belwal -----------Petitioner
Versus
State of Uttarakhand and others -------Respondents
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Presence:-
Mr. D.S.Patni, learned Senior Counsel, assisted by Mr. Himanshu
Yadav, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Mr. S.M.S.Mehta, learned Brief Holder for the State of
Uttarakhand.
Mr. Pankaj Chaturvedi and Ms. Neeti Rena, learned counsel for the
respondent nos. 2 & 3.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
JUDGMENT :
(per Mr. SUBHASH UPADHYAY, J.)
The petitioner has filed the present Writ
Petition with the following prayer:
"i. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of
certiorari quashing the impugned order dated 29.10.2025
(not formally served by the department on the petitioner
but received by the petitioner through social media on
30.10.2025) passed by respondent no. 2 (contained as
Annexure No. 3 to this Writ Petition)
ii. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of
certiorari quashing the impugned ex-pare releiveing order
dated 30.10.2025 passed by respondent no. 2(contained
as Annexure No. 4 to this writ petition).
iii. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of
2025:UHC:10066-DB
mandamus commanding and directing the respondents to
permit the petitioner to discharge his duties at his original
place of posting i.e. Uttarakhand Jal Sansthan, Haldwani
Rural (Lalkua), District Nainital and pay upto date salary."
2. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the
petitioner, who is an Assistant Engineer working in the
Uttarakhand Jal Sansthan is aggrieved by the order
dated 29.10.2025, by which, he has been transferred
from Lalkuan to Udham Singh Nagar. Counsel for the
petitioner has challenged the said transfer order on the
ground that as per the Uttarakhand Annual Transfer of
Public Servants Act, 2017, the petitioner, who is above
55 years of age being a senior employee cannot be
transferred in the last stage of service; that transfer of
Assistant Engineer is to be made only by the State
Government and the said power cannot be delegated;
that in pursuance to the order impugned the petitioner
has been ex parte relieved by the office of Executive
Engineer, Uttarakhand Jal Sansthan Haldwani on
30.10.2025 and no employee has joined at the post of
petitioner; that the petitioner's wife is suffering from a
serious lung disease and is undertaking medicines
from Haldwani; that daughter of the petitoner is
suffering from mental illness and getting instructions
at home from National Institute of Open Schooling from
2025:UHC:10066-DB
Haldwani Centre.
3. Per contra, learned counsel for the
respondent-Uttarakhand Jal Sansthan, submits that
the petitioner is continuously working in Lalkuan
Division since 2015 without any break; that the
transfer of the petitioner was made after the approval
accorded by the State Government in view of Section 25
(2) of the Uttarakhand Jan Sansthan Engineering
Service Rules, 2011; that in place of the petitioner Mr.
Shekhar Rautela has already taken the charge and has
started working since 31.10.2025.
4. Learned counsel for the respondent submits
that vide order dated 06.11.2025 respondent nos. 2 &
3 were directed to file an affidavit setting out the
distance between the current place of posting and the
transferred place of posting of the petitioner and a
specific statement has been made in para 8 of the
counter affidavit that the distance between the two
place is 26 Kms.
5. Learned counsel for the respondent, as such,
submits that as the petitioner has been continuously
working at the present place of posting for more than
2025:UHC:10066-DB
nine years and was due for transfer, as such, there is
no illegality in the transfer order. Moreover, as the
petitioner is transferred only at a distance of 26 Km, as
such, the petitioner can easily commute between the
two place of posting and the family is not to be shifted.
6. After hearing learned counsel for the parties,
we are not inclined to interfere with the transfer order
dated 29.10.2025. Admittedly the petitioner has
worked at Lalkuan Division for more than 9 years and
was due for transfer. Transfer is an exigency of service
and no employee has an indefeasible right to be posted at
a particular place of posting. The petitioner has been
transferred only 26 Km. away from the earlier place of
posting, as such, no hardship is caused to the petitioner
by the said transfer.
7. In view of the above, the Writ Petition fails and
is dismissed.
(G. NARENDAR, C. J.)
(SUBHASH UPADHYAY, J.)
Dated: 13.11.2025
Kaushal
