HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition(S/S) No. 1027 of 2025 Karam Singh ….....Petitioner Versus State of Uttarakhand and others ….….Respondents Present:- Mr. T.C. Pandey, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Rajeev Singh Bisht, Additional C.S.C. for the State/respondent nos. 1 to 4. JUDGMENT Hon’ble Ravindra Maithani, J. (Oral) The challenge in this petition is made to the 06.06.2025 by which the petitioner has been transferred from Champawat Forest Division to Almora Forest Division i.e. from remote area to accessible area. 2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is 58 years of age, therefore, he should not have been transferred. 4. The Court wanted to know as to which provision prevents the transfer of such senior employee? 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner could not indicate any provisions of law or any Rules and Regulations and Government Order in this behalf. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that Government Order dated 15.06.2023 makes provision that if an 2 employee is working in a remote area and wants to stay in the same area, he may be exempted from compulsory transfer. 6. Learned State counsel would submit that an employee posted in the remote area, he is exempted from transfer if he wants to stay in that area only if he has not completed more than four years at that place. He would submit that senior employees are not exempted from transfer from remote area to accessible area. Although, they are exempted from transfer from accessible area to remote area in view of Section 7 (d) (i) of the Uttarakhand Annual Transfer For Public Servants Act, 2017. 7. The Government Order dated 15.06.2023 has been enclosed as Annexure 2. It makes abundantly clear that if an employee has worked for more than four years at a place, his request of staying in a remote area may not be necessarily considered. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioner admits that the petitioner has been posted at the present place of posting for more than four years. 9. Having considered, this Court is of the view that there is reason to make any interference with the impugned order. Accordingly, the writ petition deserves to be dismissed at the stage of admission itself. 10. The writ petition is dismissed in limine. (Ravindra Maithani, J) 19.06.2025 Jitendra