Uttarakhand High Court
SPA/307/2026 of PREM RAM Vs STATE OF UTTARAKHAND on 14 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 July 14, 2026 Special Appeal No.307 of 2026 Prem Ram ----Appellant Versus State of Uttarakhand & Others ----Respondents
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
July 14, 2026
Special Appeal No.307 of 2026
Prem Ram
----Appellant
Versus
State of Uttarakhand & Others
----Respondents
----------------------------------------------------------------- Presence:- Mr. Bhagwat Mehra, learned counsel for the appellant Mr. B.P.S. Mer, learned Standing Counsel for the State of Uttarakhand Mr. K.K. Tiwari, learned counsel for respondent no.3.
JUDGMENT : (per Mr. Manoj Kumar Gupta, C. J.)
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
1
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 present intra-court appeal is directed against the order of learned Single Judge dated 07.07.2026 in WPSS No.1702/2026, whereby the learned Single Judge has declined to interfere with the order of transfer of the appellant dated 30.06.2026 from Rudraprayag to Dehradun. The appellant is holding the post of Senior Assistant in the Department of Industrial Development, Government of Uttarakhand, Dehradun.
2. The contention of the appellant that since he had already completed 55 years of age and was therefore exempt from transfer under Section 7(d)(i) of the Transfer Act has been repelled by learned Single Judge by holding that the said exemption only applies when an employee is transferred from accessible place to remote area, whereas in the case of the appellant, the transfer has been made from remote place to accessible place i.e. Dehradun.
3. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that although the said finding may be correct but the case of the appellant was that, in the option form, he submitted option for transfer to another remote place i.e. Gopeshwar, District Chamoli and where the vacancy still exists. However, the official respondents have passed the impugned transfer order without considering the said option.
4. It is not disputed before us that the appellant had remained posted at Rudraprayag since August, 2017 i.e. for almost 09 years. In such circumstances, we are not inclined to interfere with the transfer order, as upheld by learned Single Judge by the order under challenge. However, we leave it open to the appellant to make representation to the Department for his transfer to District Chamoli and further provide that if any such representation is made, it shall be decided by the Competent Authority within three weeks from the date of making of the representation. The representation would be considered only after the appellant joins the
transferred place in view of law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in S.C. Saxena vs. Union of India, (2006) 9 SCC 583.
5. The appeal stands disposed of accordingly.
(MANOJ KUMAR GUPTA, C. J.)
(SUBHASH UPADHYAY, J.) Dated: 14.07.2026 Rajni