Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Uttarakhand · body

2025 DAILYLAW 14395 (UTT)

BANITA POKHRIYAL v. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND

WPSS/1139/2023 · 2025-10-31

Manoj Kumar Tiwari

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

2025:UHC:9645 SL. No. Date Office Notes, reports, orders or proceedings or directions and Registrar’s order with Signatures COURT’S OR JUDGE’S ORDERS WPSS/1139/2023 Hon’ble Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J. Mr. Anil Kumar Bisht, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Narayan Dutt Bhatt, Standing Counsel for the State. 2. Petitioner is serving as Assistant Teacher, LT Grade (English). She was transferred from GIC Majrigrant, Dehradun to Government Higher Secondary School Chopra Malla, Yamkeshwar, Pauri, District Pauri Garhwal vide order dated 26.06.2023. Feeling aggrieved by her transfer, petitioner filed this writ petition in the year 2023. 3. The principal ground of challenge raised by petitioner is that she had undergone open heart surgery, therefore, she comes within the definition of Section 3-d of Transfer Act, which defines serious patient. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that because of her heart ailment and open heart surgery, petitioner is exempted from compulsory transfer. He further submits that petitioner’s husband has also undergone angioplasty and on this ground also, petitioner is exempted from compulsory transfer. 5. Mr. Narayan Dutt Bhatt, learned State Counsel, however, submits that petitioner had served for 24 long years in sugam places, therefore, she was transferred from sugam to durgam as per provisions 2025:UHC:9645 of the Transfer Act. 6. He further submits that one Ms. Reeta Nautiyal was transferred in place of petitioner at GIC, Magrigrant, Dehradun, however, because of the interim order passed by this Court in the present writ petition, she had to be shifted to some other institution. 7. Since more than two years have gone by after filing of the writ petition, and petitioner is continuing to serve at the original place of her posting on the strength of interim order, therefore, no useful purpose would be served by keeping the writ petition pending. 8. The writ petition is, accordingly, disposed of with direction to the Regional Additional Director, Secondary Education, Pauri Garhwal, to reconsider the matter in the light of the provisions of Transfer Act within eight weeks from date of presentation of certified copy of this order before him. 9. For a period of eight weeks or till decision is taken in the matter by the Additional Director, Secondary Education, Pauri Garhwal, whichever is earlier, status quo, as on today regarding petitioner’s posting shall be maintained. (Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J.) 31.10.2025 Mahinder/ 2025:UHC:9645