[Cites 3, Cited by 0]
Uttarakhand High Court
Petitioners vs State Of Uttarakhand And Others on 8 April, 2026
Author: Pankaj Purohit
Bench: Pankaj Purohit
Office Notes, reports,
orders or proceedings
SL.
Date or directions and COURT'S OR JUDGES'S ORDERS
No
Registrar's order with
Signatures
WPMS No.823 of 2026
Sanjay Singh Rayal and Others
--Petitioners
Versus
State of Uttarakhand and Others
--Respondents
Hon'ble Pankaj Purohit, J.
Mr. Yogesh Kumar Pacholia, learned
counsel for petitioners, through V.C.
2. Mr. P.S. Bisht, learned Brief Holder for
the State of Uttarakhand/respondent Nos.1
to 3.
3. Mr. D.S. Patni, learned senior counsel
assisted by Mr. Piyush Garg, learned
counsel has appeared for respondent Nos.4
and 5.
4. By means of the present writ petition,
petitioners have challenged the transfer
order dated 19.02.2026 (Annexure No.6
Colly.), whereby, respondent No.5 had
transferred petitioners from its plant
situated at SIDCUL Pantnagar to its
another plant situated at Waluz,
Aurangabad, Maharashtra.
5. It is contended by learned counsel for
petitioners that the petitioners are low paid
employees and are workmen with
respondent Nos.4 and 5 in its plant at
SIDCUL Pantnagar; the transfer order by
transferring them to Waluz, Aurangabad,
Maharashtra is highhandedness and
harassment at the hands of respondent
Nos.4 and 5; they have been transferred
from Uttarakhand to a distant place at
Aurangabad, Maharashtra.
6. He further pointed out that standing
order of respondent No.5 do not permit
such transfer out of state. Para 14 of
standing order is reproduced below:-
"14. vkUrfjd] ifjorZuh;rk@;kstu dk yphykiu
,d deZdkj dks dk;Z dh vkdfLedrk ds vuqlkj ,d
deZ"kkyk ;k foHkkx ;k vuqHkkx ls nwljs ;k ,d LFkku ls nwljs
;k ,d gh lsok;kstd ds ,d laLFkku ls nwljs esa LFkkukUrfjr
fd;k tk ldrk gS ;g vkSj fd deZdkj dh etnwjh ,oa lsok
dh fujUrjrk ifjofrZr u gksA
deZdkj dk;Z dh vkdfLedrk ds vuqlkj mPp vFkok
fuEu Js.kh ds dk;Z ,oa vU; O;olk; esa dk;Z djsaxsA
dEiuh dh vko";drk ds vuqlkj deZdkj ,sls
O;olk; esa tks fd mudh orZeku Js.kh ls vU;Fkk gksa esa dk;Z
djsaxs] tc Hkh vko";d gks] dEiuh ,sls deZdkjksa dks dEiuh esa
u;s O;olk; esa vkUrfjd foHkkx vFkok mUgsa okg~; izf"k{k.k
izk;kstuksa esa Hkstdj izf"k{k.k nsxhA izf"k{k.k ds mijkUr] ,sls
deZdkj dEiuh dh vko";drk ds vuqlkj uohu vFkok iqjkus
O;olk; esa okafNr mRiknu nsaxsA"
7. He further elaborated his argument to
submit that it nowhere speaks that a
workman can be transferred out of the
State, it only provides that workman can
be transferred from one workshop or
department or section to another
workshop, department or section.
8. He further submits that Sub-section 6
of the Section 13 of the U.P. Industrial
Employment (Model Standing Orders) Act,
1991, also provides that if an
establishment has its Unit out of the State,
no workman shall be transferred out of
State, without his prior consent.
9. He further contends that in the case in
hand, no consent has been taken by
respondent Nos.4 and 5 from petitioners,
therefore, the transfer order is totally
arbitrary, illegal and against the law and
the same cannot be sustained in the eyes
of law.
10. Per contra, learned senior counsel for
respondent Nos.4 and 5 submits that the
writ petition is not maintainable as transfer
of workmen cannot be challenged in writ
petition. Since respondent Nos.4 and 5 are
private entity, therefore, it is not amenable
to the writ jurisdiction of this Court as held
by the Division Bench of this Court in
Special Appeal No.29 of 2026 Belrise
Industries Limited Vs. Badve Engineering
Workers Union and Others, decided on
12.02.2026.
11. He further submits that there was a
requisition for employees at Aurangabad
where production is very high, therefore,
there was urgent need of more employees,
and consequently, petitioners have been
transferred.
12. He further relied upon judgment
passed by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case
of Cipla Ltd. Vs. Jayakumar R. and
Another, (1999) 1 SCC 300, wherein, in
similar set of facts, the transfer order was
not interfered with.
13. Having heard learned counsel for the
parties and having gone through the case
law relied upon by learned senior counsel
for respondent Nos.4 and 5, this Court is of
the opinion that the transfer order appears
to be highhandedness on the part of
respondent Nos.4 and 5 and its nothing but
a kind of harassment to the petitioners.
Therefore, Court cannot shut its eyes to
injustice done to the petitioners at the
hands of respondent Nos.4 and 5. The
Court's hands are not too tied to protect
the fundamental rights of the petitioners
and to deal with highhandedness and
arbitrariness meted out to the petitioners
in writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India.
14. Respondents may file counter
affidavit(s) within four weeks.
15. Put up on 11.06.2026.
16. Till the next date of listing, effect and
operation of impugned transfer order dated
19.02.2026 (Annexure No.6 Colly.) shall
remain stayed.
17. Stay Application (IA/1/2026) stands
disposed of.
(Pankaj Purohit, J.)
08.04.2026
PN
