Hira Singh Bargali vs State of Uttarakhand and Others

Instant appeal has been preferred by the appellant/petitioner aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 15.xii.2014 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in Writ Petition No. 2151 (SS) 2014 whereby the writ petition filed by the appellant was dismissed in limine. The appellant/petitioner filed writ petition, challenging the transfer order dated 3rd December, 2014 by which the petitioner, who was posted as Transport Tax Officer-I at Collection Centre, Chiriyapur, was transferred to district Champawat. The learned Single Judge, by the order under challenge, dismissed the writ petition by observing that the petitioner has already served for a considerable period in Dehradun and Haridwar, which are plain areas, and transfer to Champawat cannot be faulted as his transfer has been made under the transfer policy.

Learned counsel appearing for the appellant first of all contended that the appellant has been transferred to a place where there is no post of Transport Tax Officer. This Court directed the Standing Counsel to inquire from the Secretary, Transport Department about this particular issue. Today, learned Standing Counsel submits that though it is true that there is no post of Transport Tax Officer at Champawat, but infact, the petitioner was transferred to district Champawat and there is a post of Transport Tax Officer at Tanakpur, District Champawat, where petitioner can join his assignment. Learned Standing Counsel also supplied a copy of the order dated 06.01.2015 passed by Transport Commissioner, Uttarakhand, Dehradun by which the place of posting of the petitioner has been disclosed.

On this, learned counsel for the appellant submits that in pursuance of the impugned transfer order, the petitioner went Tanakpur, but he was not permitted to join, by saying that his transfer order is for Champawat. We find that now Standing Counsel has clarified the place of posting of the petitioner.

Another argument of the learned counsel for the appellant is that within a span of last two years, the petitioner was frequently transferred from one place to another. Earlier, vide order dated 03.05.2013, he was transferred to Uttarkashi and vide order dated 04.12.2013, he was transferred from Uttarkashi to district Haridwar and again, by the impugned order, he has been transferred to district Champawat. But this argument advanced by the counsel for the appellant will also not be helpful to the appellant, as the appellant has not worked in hill districts. In any case, transfer from one place to another cannot be said to be a frequent transfer, inasmuch as, this transfer has been made in exigency of service. We do not find this ground persuasive enough in order to interfere with the order passed by learned Single Judge of this Court. However, we make it clear that the December, 2014 was defective one, as no place of posting of joining was delineated in that. We direct that the petitioner shall be treated in service for the period from 3 earlier transfer order dated 3rd December, 2014 till he joins at Tanakpur and shall be paid salary. It is also made clear that in case the petitioner joins his duties at Tanakpur within ten days from today, no disciplinary action shall be taken against him. This disposes of the appeal. No order as to costs.