2026:UHC:3895-DB IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL THE HON’BLE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. MANOJ KUMAR GUPTA AND THE HON’BLE JUSTICE MR. SUBHASH UPADHYAY Special Appeal No.90 of 2026 May 20, 2026 Mahendra Kumar Sharma ----Appellant Versus State of Uttarakhand & Others ----Respondents ----------------------------------------------------------------- Presence:- Mr. Dushyant Mainali, learned counsel for the appellant Mr. B.S. Parihar, learned Additional C.S.C. and Mr. Ranjan Ghildiyal, learned Standing Counsel for the State of Uttarakhand Mr. Ajay Singh Bisht, learned counsel for respondent nos.3 and 4 JUDGMENT : (per Mr. Manoj Kumar Gupta C. J.) 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. This intra-court appeal is directed against the order of learned Single Judge dated 09.03.2026 by which WPSS No.505/2025 filed by the appellant, has been dismissed. Therein, the appellant had challenged the order dated 11.03.2025, whereby his order of attachment at ICAR, Pantnagar dated 29.08.2024 has been cancelled and he has been asked to rejoin at Jeolikot, Nainital. 3. Learned Single Judge has observed that in the past when the petitioner was transferred from Pantnagar to Jeolikot, Nainital, he challenged the transfer order by 1 2026:UHC:3895-DB filing WPSS No.244 of 2023. It was dismissed on 16.02.2023. The said order was not challenged by the appellant and it attained finality. Thereafter, in view of ailment of his wife, on compassionate grounds, he was attached in the Project. By the impugned order, since his attachment has been cancelled and he has been sent back to Jeolikot, Nainital, therefore, there does not arise any ground for interfering with the order cancelling the attachment. 4. It is not disputed before us that the appellant is an employee of the University. It is also not disputed that when he was transferred from the Project back to the parent department at Jeolikot, Nainital, he challenged the order by filing WPSS No.244/2023 and the said writ petition was dismissed. His attachment was on compassionate grounds and only the attachment order has been cancelled. 5. Further, we observe that MoU Clause II(j) on which reliance has been placed to contend that employees in duty under the Project cannot be transferred back, only stipulates that the staff of the Project shall be used exclusively for the Project work. It would only mean that while the appellant remained posted in the project, 2 2026:UHC:3895-DB by virtue of the said Clause, only the work of the Project could have been taken from him. The said provision does not come in the way of the respondents in repatriating him to the parent department. 6. The appeal is misconceived and is, accordingly, dismissed. (MANOJ KUMAR GUPTA, C. J.) (SUBHASH UPADHYAY, J.) Dated: 20.05.2026 Rajni 3