Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Uttarakhand · body

2025 DAILYLAW 2509 (UTT)

JYOTI S. KUMAR v. STATE OF TTARAKHAND

WPSB/236/2018 · 2025-08-13

Manoj Kumar Tiwari, Subhash Upadhyay

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

2025:UHC:7121-DB SL. No. Date Office Notes, reports, orders or proceedings or directions and Registrar’s order with Signatures COURT’S OR JUDGE’S ORDERS WPSB/236/2018 Hon’ble Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J. Hon’ble Subhash Upadhyay, J. [Per: Hon’ble Justice Shri Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J.] Mr. Sanjay Bhatt, Advocate for the petitioner. 2. Mr. Sushil Vashistha, Standing Counsel for the State. 3. This writ petition was filed by the petitioner in 2018, challenging an order dated 06.06.2018, whereby she was transferred from the post of Deputy Director (Statistics), Directorate of Agriculture, Dehradun to the post of Chief Agriculture Officer, Uttarkashi. The transfer order is on record as Annexure-7 to the writ petition, which indicates that petitioner had served for 18 years 04 months and 14 days in accessible areas (sugam), therefore, she had become due for transfer to a remote area (durgam). 4. According to the petitioner, she had become eligible for promotion to the next higher post of Joint Director, Agriculture but without considering her claim for such promotion, she has been transferred to a durgam place. 5. Learned State Counsel submits that since petitioner had become due for transfer in view 2025:UHC:7121-DB of provisions contained in section 7(b) of Uttarakhand Annual Transfer For Public Servants Act, 2017, therefore, petitioner was rightly transferred to Uttarkashi. As regards the claim of petitioner for promotion, he submits that there is some seniority dispute between the officers of Agriculture Department, due to which promotion exercise is held up. 6. Be that as it may. Since petitioner had served for more than 18 years in sugam places, therefore, her transfer to Uttarkashi cannot be faulted with. Transfer is an incidence of service and in the absence of allegation of malice or violation of statutory provisions, interference with transfer orders has to be minimal. 7. Even otherwise also, an interim order was passed in favour of petitioner on 15.06.2018, staying the effect of the transfer order and the petitioner enjoyed that interim order for seven long years, therefore, we dispose of the writ petition with liberty to the Competent Authority to pass fresh transfer order in respect of the petitioner. (Subhash Upadhyay, J.) (Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J.) 13.08.2025 13.08.2025 Rajni RAJINI GUSAIN Digitally signed by RAJINI GUSAIN DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, 2.5.4.20=97cfa6e4cbd49c07b876db48448ac3 701a9ae475a2547e4b7f1d9b1f17d01342, postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND, serialNumber=8D039BC77BD1A2222B4DF4F C80D4557562F95BEBA013F530616A158A0A 878BD8, cn=RAJINI GUSAIN Date: 2025.08.14 17:48:25 +05'30'