Sukhbir Singh Rawat vs State Of Uttarakhand & Anther

Ramesh Ranganathan, CJ

The petitioner is said to have worked in the inaccessible areas of the State of Uttarakhand for the past three decades. He was transferred from Pauri Garhwal to Haridwar by the impugned order of transfer in administrative exigencies, and not at his request. While, ordinarily, people working in accessible areas resist their transfer to inaccessible areas, the present case is just the opposite. The petitioner, having worked for three decades in inaccessible areas, insists that he be permitted to work in Pauri Garwhal (again a remote area) till his superannuation; and is aggrieved by his transfer to Haridwar which is an accessible area.

Reliance is placed by Shri Sanjay Bhatt, learned counsel for the petitioner, on Section 6 and Section 13(2) of the Uttarakhand Annual Transfer for Public Servant Act, 2017 to contend that the impugned order of transfer is illegal as it is contrary to the aforesaid provisions. Section 13 stipulates that the following procedure would be adopted for transfer on the basis of request; namely:

(1) Any employee shall be eligible to apply for transfer on request from accessible area to remote area;

(2) An employee employees eligible for transfer from remote area to accessible area on completing three years in a particular remote place or 10 years in remote area during whole length of service, shall be eligible to apply for transfer on request in remote area only.

It is evident from a reading of the aforesaid, provisions, that Section 13(2) would apply in case the petitioner had requested for such a transfer. It is not in dispute that the transfer of the petitioner, from Pauri Garhwal to Haridwar, was not at his request. Hence, Section 13(2) has no application.

Section 6 stipulates that there shall be the following kind of Annual transfer, namely:-

(a) Compulsory transfer from accessible area to remote area;

(b) Compulsory transfer from remote area to accessible area; and

(c) Transfer on the basis of request.

With respect to the aforesaid three categories of the employees, transfer is required to be effected, and cannot be avoided. That does not, however, mean that the State Government is powerless in effecting transfers in administrative exigencies.

In the present case, the petitioner's transfer from Pauri Garhwal to Haridwar is in the exigencies of administration and, therefore, no interference is called for.

Shri Sanjay Bhatt, learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is aged 58 years; he now has less than two years of service remaining till he reaches the age of superannuation; and it would be wholly inequitable to transfer him at this advanced age from Pauri Garhwal, where he is presently working, to Haridwar District.

Any such request for reconsideration can only be addressed to the respondents, and not to this Court. We consider it appropriate, in such circumstances, to permit the petitioner to make a representation seeking his retention on the ground that he has less than two years of service left. In case such a representation is submitted, the respondents shall consider the same within one month from the date of receipt of such a representation.

Subject to the aforesaid observations, the writ petition fails, and is accordingly dismissed. Needless to state that, as a result of dismissal of the writ petition, the earlier interim order stands automatically vacated. No costs.