Renu Tripathi vs State Of Uttarakhand & Others

Ramesh Ranganathan, CJ

The petitioner invoked the jurisdiction of this Court questioning her transfer from Dehradun to Lansdowne in Pauri District as being contrary to the provisions of the Annual Transfer Act, 2017. It is the petitioner's case that her husband is working with Garibi Unmolan Janta Vikas Evam Rojgar Gram Vikas at Dehradun; and, since the transfer policy requires a Government servant to be stationed at the same place his/her spouse, her transfer from Dehradun to Lansdowne is illegal.

In the counter affidavit, filed on behalf of the respondents, it is stated that the petitioner has spent her entire career, of around 38 years, only in an accessible area; though options were invited from all of those who were required, in terms of the Act, to be transferred from accessible to remote areas, the petitioner did not submit her option; the petitioner's claim of her husband being in Government service has not been mentioned by her in her request letter dated 06.05.2018; and her transfer from an accessible to a remote area is justified in such circumstances.

Section 17(1) (a) of the Act relates to compulsory transfer from accessible to remote areas and, thereunder, the transfer committee is first required to effect transfers from among employees who have spent the longest time in accessible areas during their whole service period; and the option given by such employee, for a vacancy in a remote area, shall be accepted. As noted herein above, the petitioner has spent her entire service, of around 38 years, only in accessible areas; and she has never worked in a remote area. The action of the respondents, in seeking to transfer her to a remote area, cannot, therefore, be faulted.

Ms. Menka Tripathi, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, would submit that, in terms of Section 13 (3) of the Act the petitioner, is required to be retained at Dehradun since her husband is working thereat. Section 13 (3) stipulates that in case a husband/wife, serving in the Government of Uttarakhand, wishes to be posted at same place in an accessible area or a remote area, they shall be eligible to request for transfer/posting at one place. The said provision does not obligate the respondents to retain the petitioner at Dehradun merely because her husband is working thereat. It is always open to the Government to also post the petitioner's husband to Lansdowne where she has now been transferred.

Ms. Menka Tripathi, learned counsel would further state that employees, who are aged more than 55 years, are also exempt under the Act from transfer. The fact remains that when she invoked the jurisdiction of this Court, the petitioner was aged 54 years; and her transfer from Dehradun to Lansdowne is, therefore, not vitiated on this score. In any event, these are all matters for the authorities to consider, on such a request being made by an employee by way of a representation. That does not, however, justify an employee continuing at her original place of posting, despite her being transferred to another station.

While we see no reason to interfere with the impugned order of transfer, suffice it to leave it open to the petitioner to submit her representation, and for the Government to consider the same in accordance with law. It is made clear that mere submission of a representation would not absolve the petitioner of her obligation to join at the transferred place of posting for, if her request is favorably considered later, it is always open to the Government to rescind the order of transfer, and post her elsewhere. Subject to the aforesaid observations, the writ petition fails and, is accordingly, dismissed. No costs.