Uttarakhand High Court
WPSB/448/2026 of DR DEEPALI FONIA RANA Vs STATE OF UTTARAKHAND on 16 July 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL THE HON’BLE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. MANOJ KUMAR GUPTA AND THE HON’BLE JUSTICE MR. SUBHASH UPADHYAY WRIT PETITION (S/B) NO. 448 of 2026 16th July, 2026 Dr. Deepali Fonia Rana -----Petitioner Versus State of Uttarakhand and Another
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
THE HON’BLE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. MANOJ KUMAR GUPTA
AND
THE HON’BLE JUSTICE MR. SUBHASH UPADHYAY
WRIT PETITION (S/B) NO. 448 of 2026
16th July, 2026
Dr. Deepali Fonia Rana
-----Petitioner
Versus
State of Uttarakhand and Another
----Respondents
---------------------------------------------------------------------- Presence:- Mr. Sagar Kothari and Mr. Yash Dangwal, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Mr. B.P.S. Mer, learned Standing Counsel for the State.
---------------------------------------------------------------------- JUDGMENT : (per Mr. Manoj Kumar Gupta C. J.)
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
1. The petitioner holds the post of Senior Medical Officer. She has been transferred from Training Centre, Dehradun to I.C.U., District Hospital, Haridwar, by impugned transfer order dated 29.06.2026.
2. The case of the petitioner is that transfer from accessible area to another accessible area is not permissible under the Transfer Act. The further submission is that the petitioner is suffering from cancer and she is taking treatment from the Army Base Hospital situated at Dehradun. She is stated to have undergone 18 rounds of chemotherapy so far. It is also submitted that the petitioner has already made a representation before the Department highlighting the difficulties that she would face, in case, she is compelled to join at Haridwar. It is submitted that the representation filed by the petitioner has not been considered by the Department so far, although, after the issuance of the list of annual chain of transfers, the respondents have issued two lists in relation to persons who have made representations against their transfers.
3. Learned State Counsel submits that the petitioner has only six years of service at remote places. She had remained posted at accessible place for 16 years. He further submits that the petitioner was transferred from Dehradun to Haridwar, which is also an accessible place, keeping in mind her request and her medical condition.
4. Learned State Counsel, however, does not dispute that so far the representation filed by the petitioner has not been considered.
5. Thus, while we find the contention that transfer could not have been made from one accessible place to another accessible place to be without any force, but we are of the opinion that the representation filed by the petitioner detailing her medical condition requires consideration by the respondents.
6. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of with direction to the concerned authority to take decision on the representation of the petitioner dated 30.06.2026 within three weeks. It is further provided that until the representation is decided, the impugned transfer order will remain in abeyance. It shall thereafter abide by the decision that would be taken by the Department on the representation of the petitioner.
7. Pending application, if any, also stands disposed of.
(MANOJ KUMAR GUPTA, C. J.)
(SUBHASH UPADHYAY, J.) Dated: 16.07.2026 KKS/PP