UKHC010125612026 2026:UHC:6260-DB IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI MANOJ KUMAR GUPTA AND HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SUBHASH UPADHYAY WRIT PETITION (S/B) NO. 457 OF 2026 23RD JULY, 2026 Dinesh Pratap Singh …… Petitioner Versus State of Uttarakhand & others …… Respondents Counsel for the petitioner : Mr. S.S. Yadav, learned counsel Counsel for the respondents : Mr. Mohinder Singh Bisht, learned Brief Holder for the State / respondent Nos. 1 to 3 The Court made the following: JUDGMENT: (per Sri Manoj Kumar Gupta, C.J.) 1) The case is listed under the caption “Fresh Cases as Defective”. The defect, as pointed out by the Registry, being negligible, is hereby ignored. 2) The present writ petition has been filed questioning inaction on part of the authorities in not considering the request of the petitioner for his transfer from the present place of posting i.e. as Professor at Government Degree College, Pokhari Quili, District Tehri Garhwal to Dehradun city, Raipur, Dakpatthar or Bhupatwala. 3) The State Government by an order dated 22.10.2024 inflicted punishment of censure upon the 1 UKHC010125612026 2026:UHC:6260-DB petitioner and by the same order also transferred him from Government P.G. College, Maldevta Raipur, Dehradun to the present place of posting i.e. Government P.G. College, Pokhari Quili, Tehri Garhwal. The petitioner assailed the order of his transfer in Writ Petition (S/B) No. 688 of 2024, but the said writ petition was dismissed by this Court by order dated 13.03.2026. During the annual transfer chain, the petitioner applied for his transfer to any of the aforesaid stated places. His name finds place at serial No. 1 in the eligibility list. The eligibility list also reveals that the petitioner has completed 15 years 02 months 28 days of service at remote places. Since, however, the respondents have not accepted the request of the petitioner for transfer to an accessible place, therefore, the present writ petition has been filed. 4) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was entitled to be transferred to an accessible area as he had completed more than 10 years of service during his service tenure at remote places. In this regard reliance has been placed on Section 10(b) of the Transfer Act, 2017. 5) Learned State counsel, on the other hand, submits that the petitioner has only rendered 01 year 07 2 UKHC010125612026 2026:UHC:6260-DB months 07 days of service at the present place of posting and, therefore, his request for transfer to an accessible place has not been considered. He further places reliance on Section 17(2)(c) in contending that the petitioner could not have been transferred to an accessible place before expiry of 05 years. 6) Section 17(2)(c) of the Uttarakhand Annual Transfer For Public Servants Act, 2017, is as follows : “Transfers on administrative ground shall not be made from accessible to accessible place/area and such employee shall not be posted again in that district/place before expiry of 05 years in any circumstances.” 7) As the posting of the petitioner is at a remote place, though on administrative ground, therefore Section 17(2)(c) would not strictly apply to his case. On the other hand, Section 10(b) provides as follows : “If any employee is working for less than 03 years at their present place of posting but have served in remote area during whole service period for more than 10 years, shall be compulsorily transferred from remote area to accessible area. To determine such period, the proviso of definition of remote area mentioned in Appendix specified under section 3 shall be taken into consideration: 3 UKHC010125612026 2026:UHC:6260-DB Provided that while counting this period only such period shall be counted during which the employee was actually working in the remote area, if he is attached to accessible area, then period of attachment in accessible area and the period of leave excess to one month in a year shall not be counted for the purpose of calculating the period of posting in remote area.” 8) In view of the above, we permit the petitioner to make representation before the authorities within one week along with true copy of the instant order and further provide that the representation shall be decided by the competent authority within next two weeks. 9) The writ petition stands ordered accordingly. 10) Pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of. _______________________ MANOJ KUMAR GUPTA, C.J. _________________ SUBHASH UPADHYAY, J. Dt: 23RD JULY, 2026 Negi 4 HIMANS HU NEGI Digitally signed by HIMANSHU NEGI DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, 2.5.4.20=bb3b60774012c1ef1dae20d13a af116e73351fdaf6878326386908a7f90d5 757, postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND, serialNumber=75BD9D0FB7F4A80990FC5 1A722A6BC552D470EB4FD2F88DDF7C18 DB2A1524A4D, cn=HIMANSHU NEGI Date: 2026.07.27 10:18:49 +05'30'