Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Uttarakhand · body

2025 DAILYLAW 15878 (UTT)

TARA DUTT UPADHYAY v. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND

WPSS/1590/2023 · 2025-11-13

Manoj Kumar Tiwari

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

SL. No. Dat e Of f ice Not es, r ep or t s, or d er s or p r oceed in g s or d ir ect ion s an d Reg ist r ar ’s or d er w it h Sig n at u r es COURT’S OR JUDGE’S ORDERS W PSS 1 5 9 0 / 2 0 2 3 Hon ’ble Man oj Ku m ar Tiw ar i, J. Mr. Mukul Dangi, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Narayan Datt, Standing Counsel, for the State. (2) Petitioner is serving as Revenue Peon in District Pithoragarh. He was transferred from Tehsil Ganai Gangoli to Tehsil Gangolihat, vide order dated 10.8.2023. Thus feeling aggrieved, he has filed this writ petition. (3) Petitioner contends that SDM is not competent for passing the transfer order; petitioner was transferred within a year of his posting at Ganai Gangoli and the order of transfer is actuated with malice. Petitioner has also relied upon Section 21(2) of the Transfer Act, which, according to him, was violated while passing the transfer order. (4) Learned State Counsel, per contra, submits that as per the Government Order dated 12.1.1976, SDM is competent not only to transfer Group ‘D’ employees but also to appoint and punish them. He further submits that there were complaints against the petitioner that he used to disobey the orders passed by the superior authorities, therefore his transfer was necessitated in order to maintain discipline in the organisation. (5) Coordinate Bench vide order dated 1.9.2023 had granted interim order in favour of the petitioner, pursuant to which he is still continuing at Ganai Gangoli. This Court thinks that no useful purpose would be served by keeping the writ petition pending. Writ petition is, accordingly, disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to approach the SDM concerned by making a representation. If he makes representation within one week from today, SDM concerned shall take decision thereupon within three weeks thereafter. For a period of four weeks or till decision is taken, whichever is earlier, there shall be status quo qua the present place of posting of the petitioner. ( Man oj Ku m ar Tiw ar i, J.) 1 3 .1 1 .2 0 2 5 Pr PRABODH KUMAR Digitally signed by PRABODH KUMAR DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, 2.5.4.20=3a082a00a95aff911a9559743af8f21c50602ff6eae4e61af3aeab198d462503, postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND, serialNumber=0DC111E8D8CA66E16B940EFDF806ACCC1AB588052DF6FCA58C67F3C91957BE53, cn=PRABODH KUMAR Date: 2025.11.14 10:30:06 +05'30'