Smt. Neera Rawat vs State of Uttarakhand & Others

SHARAD SHARMA, J. (ORAL)

The petitioner in an earlier Writ Petition being Writ Petition No. 1639/2018 (S/S) has challenged the order of transfer dated 29.05.2018, transferring

her from Bhimtal to Bajpur, Udham Singh Nagar. In the said Writ Petition initially the petitioner has raised two fold arguments claiming an exemption

from the applicability of act and consequently an exemption from transfer, namely:

(i) Since she being 58 years of age would be a senior employee under Section 3(h) would be exempted from transfer.

(ii) Since by the impugned order she has being transferred from Sugam to Sugam is not a situation perceived under the Act, petitioner could not be

transferred has to be kept outside the review of transfer under exemption clause.

The Writ Petition was disposed of on 19.06.2018 directing the respondent to consider the representation preferred by the petitioner under Section

22(4) of the Act of 2017. The representation thus submitted by the petitioner has been rejected by the impugned order dated 13.07.2018. Questioning

the two orders, the present Writ Petition has been filed, which was called upon from the Registry on a mention being made by the petitioner in the

morning.

The argument of learned counsel in the light of definition of senior employee under Section 3(h) and restriction of transfer under Section 7 would

not apply because the said restriction is for transfer from Sugam to Durgam, which is not the case at hand, because petitioner is transferred from

Sugam to Sugam by the impugned order.

Admitted fact which emerges from record and pleadings raised in Writ Petition are that petitioner was appointed as Junior Clerk on 22.08.1987 and

was posted at Bajpur. Admittedly as per the service record her permanent residence has been described as Nainital, which has sought to be corrected

as Almora, for which petitioner contends to have filed an application by way of affidavit on 8.12.1997, same is pending, records remains the same. As

a consequence of her promotion to the post of senior clerk vide order dated 10.03.2006, she was transferred from Ramnagar to Bhimtal. Petitioner

was again accorded promotion to the post of Administrative Officer on 20.10.2011 and was transferred from Bhimtal to Bhagwanpur, Roorkee,

Haridwar, The respondents thereafter by order dated 22.12.2011 was attached to Bhimtal. Ultimately, petitioner was transferred from Bhagwanpur to

Haldwani on 11.08.2017, and finally on 28.10.2017 she was transferred to Bhimtal as Administrative Officer, where she joined on 09.11.2017.

Petitioner in paragraph 11 of Writ Petition admits that she was appointed on 22.08.1987 with address shown as Nainital, and she was later married on

11.02.1988 to Dan Singh, a resident of Almora.

In view of fact that petitioner’s block is Bhimtal she cannot be posted in District Nainital due to bar under Section 17(2) kha of the Transfer

Act.

The order of rejection has been made on the ground that the petitioner cannot be permitted to be posted at a place of residence or the home district

in view of the bar created under Section 17 (2) kha. To overcome the said findings recorded, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that she is

a resident of Almora on account of a marriage her address or the place of residence has been recorded as Nainital in service record. His case is that

for correcting the said address and for recording the home district in service records, she has submitted a representation as back on 08.12.1997 before

the Project Officer, but the same is pending consideration, and no

orders have passed on the same.

Owing to the said circumstances, the fact which remains unrebutted is that admittedly by her own conduct the petitioner has sought alteration of

place of residence in her service records as back as by filing a representation in 1997. Whatsoever, the consequences of the said application may be,

but the fact remains that the petitioner still continues to be recorded in the service records showing her place of residence as to be Nainital. In that

eventuality, the reason, which has been assigned in the impugned order rejecting her representation, is absolutely justified because she cannot be

posted in the home district of which she is the domicile.

In that view of the matter, I do not find any merit in the Writ Petition. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed. There would be no order as to

costs.