Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Uttarakhand · body

2026 DAILYLAW 7799 (UTT)

SHAILESH VERMA v. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND

WPSS/1716/2026 · 2026-07-07

Pankaj Purohit

Transfer Petitionbody2026

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

UKHC010115772026 2026:UHC:5442 SL. No. Date Office Notes, reports, orders or proceedings or directions and Registrar’s order with Signatures COURT’S OR JUDGE’S ORDERS WPSS/1716/2026 Shailesh Verma --Petitioner Versus State Of Uttarakhand --Respondent Hon'ble Pankaj Purohit, J. Mr. TPS Takuli, learned Counsel for the petitioner. 2. Mr. N.S. Pundir, learned Dy.A.G. for the State. 3. Petitioner has impugned the transfer order dated 30.06.2026 whereby petitioner, who is working as Administrative Officer, is transferred from Dehradun (accessible area) to Pauri (remote area) under compulsory transfer in exercise of powers vested under Section 17(1)(a) of the Uttarakhand Annual Transfer for Public Servants Act, 2017 (hereinafter to be referred to as ‘the Act’). 4. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has impugned the aforesaid order by alleging that in order to accommodate respondent no.3 who has been transferred under the selfsame order, petitioner has been transferred. 5. Per contra, learned State Counsel submits that petitioner is working in Dehradun ever-since 2002, and therefore, he falls within the ambit of ‘compulsory transfer’ and thus, petitioner has been transferred from accessible place to remote area i.e. Pauri. 6. Having heard learned Counsel for the parties, this Court is of the view that since petitioner has been UKHC010115772026 2026:UHC:5442 posted in Dehradun for last 24 years, therefore, he has rightly been transferred to Pauri by exercising powers under Section 17(1)(a) of the Act. 7. The challenge thrown by petitioner on the ground that petitioner was transferred only to adjust respondent no.3 is nothing but a mere figment of his mind and the same is, accordingly, turned down. 8. Moreover, transfer is an exigency of service and for administrative reasons, petitioner can well be transferred. Further, petitioner has no right to remain at a particular place of his posting for a long period. 9. No interference is called for. The writ petition is thus, dismissed. 10. Pending application, if any, stands disposed of. (Pankaj Purohit, J.) 07.07.2026 R.Dang