2025:UHC:7817-DB HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL THE HON’BLE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. G. NARENDAR AND THE HON’BLE JUSTICE MR. SUBHASH UPADHYAY Special Appeal No.225 of 2025 3rd September, 2025 Rajendra Kumar Singh …Appellant Versus State of Uttarakhand & Ors. …Respondents ---------------------------------------------------------------- Presence:- Mr. Deep Chandra Joshi, learned counsel for the appellant. Mr. P.C. Bisht, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State of Uttarakhand. ---------------------------------------------------------------- JUDGMENT : (Per Sri G. NARENDAR, C.J.) 1. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and the learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State. 2. The short ground canvassed by the appellant is that he is a divorcee and a decree of divorce has been granted by the Family Court, Udham Singh Nagar and that the decree of divorce came to be granted on 28.05.2025. 3. It is the further case of the appellant that he is a single parent and, hence, the impugned transfer is liable to be interfered with. In this regard, he would place reliance on sub-section (6) of Section 13 of The Uttarakhand Annual Transfer For Public Servants Act, 2017, which reads as 1 2025:UHC:7817-DB under:- “Widow, widower, divorcee declared by competent court, divorced employee and senior employees shall be eligible to request for transfer to an area of their choice”. 4. From a plain reading of the provision, it is apparent that the widow, widower or divorcee, are vested with a option to make a request for transfer to a place of their choice and not for retention in accessible areas. 5. The transfer is challenged on the ground that the appellant being a single parent and in view of sub-section (6) of Section 13 of the Act, the transfer order is void being contrary to the provisions of the Act. As noted supra, the provision only enables a widow, widower or divorcee to make a request for his/her transfer to a place of their choice and is not a bar to transfer the government servant. 6. In that view of the matter, the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner, being without substance, is rejected. Accordingly, the appeal also stands rejected. There shall be no order as to costs. (G. NARENDAR, C.J.) (SUBHASH UPADHYAY, J.) Dated: 03.09.2025 R/SS 2 RAJINI GUSAIN Digitally signed by RAJINI GUSAIN DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, 2.5.4.20=97cfa6e4cbd49c07b876db48448a c3701a9ae475a2547e4b7f1d9b1f17d01342, postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND, serialNumber=8D039BC77BD1A2222B4DF4 FC80D4557562F95BEBA013F530616A158A 0A878BD8, cn=RAJINI GUSAIN Date: 2025.09.13 14:49:42 +05'30' 2025:UHC:7817-DB 3