Raghunath Singh vs State Of Uttarakhand And Others

Pankaj Purohit, J

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

Petitioner has impugned the transfer order dated 30.07.2024, annexure-1 to the writ petition, passed by respondent no.3, whereby the petitioner has been transferred from Government Higher Secondary School, Kilawali, District Udham Singh Nagar to Government Higher Secondary School, Kedagaon, District Nainital.

It is the case of the petitioner that petitioner is presently posted at Kilawali, District Udham Singh Nagar as Assistant Teacher, L.T. Grade (Maths).

The main ground to challenge the impugned transfer order is the illness of petitioner’s wife, who according to him, falls within the category of “Serious Patient” as defined under Section 3(d) of the Uttarakhand Annual Transfer for Public Servants Act, 2017 (for short “The Transfer Act, 2017)”. A certificate issued by the State Medical Board is annexed as annexure-2 to the writ petition, wherein it has been stated that wife of the petitioner’s case is of Coronary Artery Disease needs regular follow up and treatment with cardiology.

Vide order dated 06.08.2024, State Counsel was directed to seek instructions in the matter.

Today, instructions dated 08.08.2024 have been supplied to this Court, which are taken on record. On instructions, it is submitted by learned State Counsel that during his entire service, petitioner has not rendered a single day service in remote area, therefore, his case falls in the top of the eligibility list of the compulsory transfer from accessible area to remote area and for this reason, petitioner has been transferred.

So far as the disease from which the wife of the petitioner is suffering from, the instructions are that, the case of petitioner’s wife does not fall within the definition of Section 3(d) of the Transfer Act, 2017.

From perusal of the medical report only this much is reflected that she is suffering from coronary heart disease and needs a treatment with some cardiologist.

Having considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties; from perusal of the record and the instructions received by the State Counsel, this Court does not find that it is a fit case where the interference is warranted.

At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner made a request that the petitioner may be permitted to press his representation (annexure-6 to the writ petition) to the respondent no.3 and the respondent no.3 may be directed to decide the same.

The proposition made by learned counsel for the petitioner is not opposed by learned State Counsel.

Accordingly, writ petition is disposed of finally with a direction to the respondent no.3 to take decision on the representation of the petitioner (annexure-6 to the writ petition) by reasoned and speaking order within a period of four weeks from the date of production of certified copy of this order.

No order as to costs.

Pending application, if any, stands disposed of accordingly.