UKHC010135162026 2026:UHC:6735 SL. No. Date Office Notes, reports, orders or proceedings or directions and Registrar’s order with Signatures COURT’S OR JUDGE’S ORDERS WPSS/2030/2026 Smt Suneeta Agrawal --Petitioner Versus State Of Uttarakhand --Respondent Hon'ble Pankaj Purohit, J. Mr. Dinesh Gahtori, learned Counsel for the petitioner. 2. Mr. Maneesh Bisht, learned B.H. for the State. 3. Petitioner has put to challenge the transfer order dated 10.06.2026 issued by respondent no.2 (Annexure No.1) whereby petitioner has been transferred from Naugaon (Uttarkashi) to Bahadarabad-II, Haridwar in public interest. 4. Learned Counsel for the petitioner is candid enough to admit that petitioner has joined at the transferred place, but at the same time, petitioner has made a request before this Court that the transfer of petitioner has been made in violation of provisions contained under Section 7(d)(i) of the Uttarakhand Annual Transfer for Public Servants Act, 2017 (to be referred to as ‘the Act’). It is further argued that the said provision contemplates that the ‘Senior employees’ shall be exempted from ‘compulsory transfer’ from accessible area to remote area, inasmuch as petitioner is at present 57 years of age, however, she has been deprived of the said benefit. 5. Upon a perusal of the aforesaid sub-section, it is evident that the reliance placed by the petitioner upon Section 7(d)(i) of the Act is misplaced simply for the reason that the said provision operates if a government UKHC010135162026 2026:UHC:6735 servant is transferred from accessible place to remote place, while in the case in hand, the situation is completely otherwise viz. petitioner has been transferred from remote place to accessible place. Further, since transfer order has been executed upon joining of petitioner at the transferred place, therefore, no case is made out for interference. 6. It is then submitted by learned Counsel for petitioner that petitioner has been discriminated vis-à- vis Smt. Renu Bhandari and Smt. Neenu Bhandari whose transfer orders passed on 10.06.2026 have been amended and they have been placed in the same district. 7. In view of aforesaid submission, it is submitted by petitioner that she has already made a representation on 15.06.2026 to respondent no.2 (Annexure No.5) which is still pending. Petitioner wants the said representation to be decided within a stipulated period. 8. Accordingly, this writ petition is disposed of. Respondent no.2-Director, Women Empowerment & Child Welfare, Dehradun is directed to decide the representation dated 15.06.2026 moved by petitioner (Annexure No.5) in accordance with law within a period of four weeks from the date of production of a certified copy of this order. 9. Pending application, if any, stands disposed of. (Pankaj Purohit, J.) 03.08.2026 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=963da6fc6df8dbb91944e0c58b9ed259ec3d800f419a1199f15a3961c8ca2957, postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND, serialNumber=63F6E663A1DD44892EED6B81F043D778B37D74D2DB7200F2DABC7ABCC1CA358D, cn=RAJEEV DANG Date: 2026.08.03 18:11:49 +05'30'