Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Uttarakhand · body

2025 DAILYLAW 9081 (UTT)

MAYANK KAUSHIK v. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND

WPSS/1181/2025 · 2025-08-25

Manoj Kumar Tiwari

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

2025:UHC:7510 SL. No. Date Office Notes, reports, orders or proceedings or directions and Registrar’s order with Signatures COURT’S OR JUDGE’S ORDERS WPSS/1181/2025 Hon’ble Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J 1. Mr. T.P.S. Takuli, learned counsel for the petitioner. 2. Mr. N.S. Pundir, learned Deputy Advocate General for the State of Uttarakhand. 3. Petitioner is aggrieved by his transfer made vide order dated 10.06.2025. By the said order, he was transferred from the Office of Head of Department, Public Works Department, Dehradun to the Office of Regional Office, Public Works Department, Pauri. 4. It is not in dispute that petitioner was appointed on compassionate grounds as Junior Assistant in Public Works Department on 28.01.2015 and he is serving in the Office of Head of Department, Public Works Department, Dehradun ever since his appointment. 5. Learned State Counsel submits that as per the The Uttarakhand Annual Transfer for Public Servants Act, 2017, anyone, who has served at a Sugam place for ten years or more, is liable to be transferred to a Durgam place. He submits that Dehradun is a Sugam place, therefore, as per Transfer Act, petitioner has been transferred to Pauri, which is categorised as Durgam. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner, however, submits that petitioner is suffering from heart disease and 2025:UHC:7510 angioplasty was done on him in the year 2023. 7. Learned State Counsel, however, submits that Regional Office, PWD, Pauri is at a distance of about 30 kms from District Head Quarter at Srinagar, where there is Government Medical College. He submits, therefore, the contention that proper medical facilities are not available in Pauri, cannot be accepted. 8. This Court finds substance in the contention raised by learned State Counsel. Since petitioner has been transferred as per provisions of Transfer Act, 2017, therefore, this Court does not find any ground to interfere in the matter. 9. The writ petition, however, disposed of by permitting petitioner to make representation to the Competent Authority against his transfer. If petitioner makes such representation on or before 29.08.2025, decision thereupon shall be taken within ten days thereafter. (Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J) 25.08.2025 Aswal NITI RAJ SINGH ASWAL Digitally signed by NITI RAJ SINGH ASWAL DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, 2.5.4.20=eacc6757ee7881e933ff8934f07477005aa85f9802a3a08b08d1369512ea30f3, postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND, serialNumber=44EB54CBF00B7698CB6F10C2CE3D26F5C22DACF4F4610C1FE58A585317 26FBB0, cn=NITI RAJ SINGH ASWAL Date: 2025.08.25 05:19:40 -07'00' 2025:UHC:7510