Citation : 2026 Latest Caselaw 2498 UK
Judgement Date : 31 March, 2026
2026:UHC:2245-DB
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
AT NAINITAL
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SHRI MANOJ KUMAR GUPTA
AND
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SUBHASH UPADHYAY
31ST MARCH, 2026
WRIT PETITION (S/B) No. 306 OF 2025
Lt. Col. Prashant Yadav.
...Petitioner
Versus
The Union of India and others.
...Respondents
Counsel for the petitioner. : Mr. Ketan Joshi and Mr. Hemant Singh
Mahra, learned counsel.
Counsel for the respondent nos. 1, : Mr. Saurav Adhikari, learned CGSC for
2 & 5. the Union of India.
Counsel for respondent nos. 3 & : Mr. V.K. Kapruwan, learned counsel.
4.
JUDGMENT :
(per Shri Manoj Kumar Gupta, C.J.)
1. The present Writ Petition has been filed, assailing
the transfer/ repatriation list dated 15.07.2025 & 01.07.2025,
whereby, inter alia, the petitioner has been transferred/
repatriated from the post of Administrative Officer, Sainik
School Ghorakhal, Nainital to New Unit 21 Field Ammunition
Depot, (21 FD AMN Depot) Khundru, District Anantnag,
Jammu & Kashmir. The petitioner has also prayed for a writ of
mandamus, restraining the respondents from transferring the
petitioner during mid-academic session, and to allow him to
complete his full deputation till 17.05.2026.
2026:UHC:2245-DB
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner points out that an
interim order was passed in favour of the petitioner in the
present Writ Petition on 30.07.2025, and, in pursuance
thereof, the petitioner has continued at his original place of
posting. He very fairly states that the petitioner has, thereby,
remained at the same place, and the academic session has
come to end, therefore, the reliefs sought in the Writ Petition
have virtually been rendered infructuous. He, however,
submits that a mid-transfer in Army works adversely in future
and, therefore, the respondents might treat his mid-transfer
as adverse in future.
3. Shri Saurav Adhikari, learned CGSC appearing on
behalf of Union of India states that the impugned order is only
an order of transfer of the petitioner, along with several other
persons, and there is no question of the same being treated as
an adverse material against the petitioner in future.
4. In view of the stand taken by learned counsel for the
petitioner and the respondents, we are of the considered
opinion that the Writ Petition has become infructuous by efflux
of time.
2026:UHC:2245-DB
5. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed, as having
become infructuous.
6. All pending applications stand disposed of
accordingly.
______________________ MANOJ KUMAR GUPTA, C.J.
___________________ SUBHASH UPADHYAY, J.
Dt: 31st March, 2026 Rahul
RAHUL UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, 2.5.4.20=aa4fa3bee6691397758b14516ed3e 66e61bf4c848741983ed8c39e4145cf1dab,
PRAJAPATI postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND, serialNumber=303B55CC3063D34AC45BF8A 192FCAD15C390A1AAD7B39857D2540AE4C 28A4898, cn=RAHUL PRAJAPATI Date: 2026.03.31 16:38:23 +05'30'
Publish Your Article
Campus Ambassador
Media Partner
Campus Buzz
LatestLaws.com presents: Lexidem Offline Internship Program, 2026
LatestLaws.com presents 'Lexidem Online Internship, 2026', Apply Now!