Naveen Chandra Pant vs State Of Uttarakhand And Others

Pankaj Purohit, J

Counter affidavit filed by respondent Nos.2 to 5/UPCL is taken on record. Misc. Application (IA/3/2026) stands disposed of.

By means of this writ petition, petitioner has sought the following reliefs:

(i). Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned office memorandum dated 05.01.2026 (marked as annexure no.1) issued by respondent No.3 herein and sent to the Petitioner through WhatsApp by respondent No.5 on the evening of 15.01.2026 whereby the Petitioner has been transferred to 33/11 K.V. Substation, H.M.T. Ranibagh Section under Electricity Distribution Division (Urban), Haldwani from 33/11 K.V. Substation Gaulapar.

(ii). Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing letter dated 09.01.2026 (marked as annexure no.2) issued by Respondent No.5 and sent to the employee of a private contractor on WhatsApp, whereby the Petitoiner was directed to comply with impugned office memorandum dated 05.01.2026 and further quash impugned letters dated 14.01.2026 @ 10.02.2026 (marked as annexure no.3) issued by Respondent No.4 and addressed to Respondent No.5 which is also marked to the Petitioner whereby it was directed to ensure that the material mentioned in the letter given by Respondent No.6 herein be taken over from the former Junior Engineer/ Petitioner.

(iii). Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing letter dated 16.01.2026 (marked as annexure no.4), issued by Respondent No.5 and sent to the Petitioner through WhatsApp, whereby Respondent No.5 while referring to impugned office memorandum dated 05.01.2026, has relieved the Petitioner from his original place of posting i.e., 33/11 K.V. Substation Gaulapar under the Electricity Distribution Division (Urban) Subhashnagar and has further directed the Petitioner to take charge of 33/11 K.V. Substation, H.M.T. Ranibagh.

(iv). Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the Respondents to promptly post the Petitioner to his original place of posting at 33/11 K.V. Substation Gaulapar and also grant access to the Petitioner to login to his E.R.P.- S.A.P. Module with the same entries as were left by the Petitioner before he was illegally transferred and his E.R.P.-S.A.P. Module was prematurely closed by the Respondents.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner has challenged the impugned order on the ground that the impugned order has been passed by the Authority, which is not competent to transfer the petitioner.

This fact is disputed by learned counsel for respondent Nos.2 to 5-UPCL relying upon the Para 11 of its counter affidavit, which is reproduced as under:-

"11....It is wrong to contend that the office memorandum dated 05.01.2026 suffers from any illegality or has been passed in an arbitrary manner. It is submitted that the said memorandum was duly served upon the petitioner.

It is apt to mention here in that firstly as per Uttarakhand Power Corporation Limited Junior Engineer (E&M) Service Regulation 2018, Director (HR) is the appointing authority and secondly, the order in question has been issued by the managing director only which has merely been signed by executive director for and on behalf of the Managing Director and under his instructions. The said procedure is a standard practice followed in the Corporation.

It is further apt to mention herein that the petitioner was fully aware of, and duly served with, the posting order. The through dispatch on 15.01.2026, and the petitioner himself acknowledged receipt of the same in the dispatch register."

Learned counsel for respondent Nos.2 to 5-UPCL submits that the order has been issued by the Competent Authority i.e. Managing Director and the copy of the same was forwarded to petitioner by Executive Director (HR).

He further submits that by the impugned order dated 05.01.2026, petitioner has merely been posted from one sub-station to another within the same distribution division/ same sub-division and within the same city and petitioner has already joined at the transferred place.

In view of the submission made by learned counsel for respondent Nos.2 to 5-UPCL, this Court does not find any merit in the present writ petition. Thus, no interference is required in the present writ petition.

In view of the above, the present writ petition fails and the same is accordingly dismissed.

All pending applications stand disposed of.