UKHC010110732026 2026:UHC:5223 SL. No. Date Office Notes, reports, orders or proceedings or directions and Registrar’s order with Signatures COURT’S OR JUDGE’S ORDERS WPSS/1656/2026 Leela Pargai --Petitioner Versus State of Uttarakhand --Respondent Hon'ble Pankaj Purohit, J. Mr. Amar Murti Shukla, learned Counsel for the petitioner. 2. Mr. Rakesh Kunwar, learned Addl. C.S.C. for the State. 3. By means of present writ petition, petitioner has challenged the order dated 10.06.2026 (Annexure No.2 to the writ petition) whereby the petitioner was transferred from Ramgarh (Nainital) to Rudrapur (Rural), U.S. Nagar. 4. The impugned transfer order is challenged by petitioner on the ground that petitioner has crossed the age of 55 years and at present she is 57 years and 10 months old. He has placed reliance upon Section 7(d)(i) of the Uttarakhand Annual Transfer for Public Servants Act, 2017 which provides exemption for senior employees from compulsory transfer. 5. At this stage, Mr. Rajiv Singh Bisht, learned Dy.A.G. appearing for the State intervened and apprised the Court that provisions of Section 7(d)(i) of the aforesaid Act would be attracted in case of those senior employees who have been transferred on compulsory transfer from accessible area to remote area, however, since the petitioner has been transferred from a remote area to an accessible area, this provision would not be attracted. UKHC010110732026 2026:UHC:5223 6. I have perused the provision of Section 7(d)(i) of the Transfer Act and I am convinced with the submissions made by learned State Counsel. Accordingly, no interference is warranted. 7. Moreover, transfer is the exigency of service and the petitioner has got no right to stay at the place of her choice for long. In order to maintain administrative equilibrium, transferring the employees from inaccessible to accessible area is a sine qua non as this exercise would also allow the transfer of employees to inaccessible areas, who have been working in accessible area since long. 8. In such view of the matter, the writ petition fails and the same is dismissed. 9. Pending application, if any, stands disposed of. (Pankaj Purohit, J.) 01.07.2026 R.Dang RAJEEV DANG Digitally signed by RAJEEV DANG DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, 2.5.4.20=963da6fc6df8dbb91944e0c58b9ed2 59ec3d800f419a1199f15a3961c8ca2957, postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND, serialNumber=63F6E663A1DD44892EED6B8 1F043D778B37D74D2DB7200F2DABC7ABCC 1CA358D, cn=RAJEEV DANG Date: 2026.07.01 16:39:20 +05'30'