UKHC010138472026 2026:UHC:7022-DB HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL THE HON’BLE CHIEF JUSTICE SHRI MANOJ KUMAR GUPTA AND THE HON’BLE JUSTICE SHRI SUBHASH UPADHYAY 10th August, 2026 WRIT PETITION (S/B) NO. 523 of 2026 Arun Kumar Verma ------Petitioner Versus State of Uttarakhand and Others ----Respondents Presence:- Mr. R.S. Sammal, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Ms. Sarita Bisht, learned counsel for the petitioner. Mr. Rajeev Singh Bisht, learned Deputy Advocate General with Mr. B.S. Parihar, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- JUDGMENT: (per Manoj Kumar Gupta, C.J.) 1. The petitioner, who is Assistant Engineer in PWD was transferred from Bhowali to Lohaghat by order dated 30.06.2026, during the annual chain of transfers. After he joined Lohaghat, within short period of three weeks, he was again transferred by order dated 24.07.2026 to Tharali on administrative grounds. 2. Learned State Counsel has placed on record the instructions received from the Department, according to which, on 20.01.2026, the Executive Engineer, Temporary Division, PWD, Bhowali had recommended for initiating disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner; for considering stoppage of his salary from January, 2026 onwards; and for his transfer on administrative grounds to a different Division. 3. Thus, the main case of the respondents is that in 1 UKHC010138472026 2026:UHC:7022-DB view of the recommendation made by the Executive Engineer, vide letter dated 20.01.2026, the petitioner has been transferred to a different Division on administrative grounds. It is urged that the transfer of the petitioner to Lohaghat was on basis of the choice exercised by him and not on administrative grounds. 4. It is not disputed before us that Lohaghat, where the petitioner was transferred in pursuance of transfer order dated 30.06.2026 is in different Division, therefore, the recommendation made by the Executive Engineer stood complied with. Merely because Lohaghat happens to be place of choice of the petitioner would not entitle the respondents to transfer him once again within short period of three weeks and that too after he had joined Lohaghat. Apparently, the impugned order suffers from non- application of mind and appears to be a result of colorable exercise of power. It is accordingly quashed. 5. The writ petition thus stands allowed. (MANOJ KUMAR GUPTA, C.J.) (SUBHASH UPADHYAY, J.) Dated: 10.08.2026 PP/ 2