Uttarakhand High Court
SPA/272/2026 of NAVEEN CHANDRA PANT Vs STATE OF UTTARAKHAND on 19 June 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 Special Appeal No. 272 of 2026 19th June, 2026 Naveen Chandra Pant -----Appellant Versus State of Uttarakhand and 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
Special Appeal No. 272 of 2026
19th June, 2026
Naveen Chandra Pant
-----Appellant
Versus
State of Uttarakhand and Others
----Respondents
---------------------------------------------------------------------- Presence:- Mr. Siddhant Manral, learned counsel for the appellant.
Mr. B.P.S.Mer and Mr. M.S.Bisht, learned counsel for the appellant.
Mr. Piyush Garg, learned counsel for the respondent nos. 2 to 6.
---------------------------------------------------------------------- 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 present intra-court appeal is directed against the order of learned Single Judge dated 09.06.2026, whereby the Writ Petition (S/S) No. 847 of 2026, filed by the appellant challenging the order of his transfer dated 05.01.2026 from one sub-station to another sub-station in the same district has been dismissed.
2. Before the learned Single judge the main contention was that the order was issued by Director (HR), who was not competent to pass the transfer order. The learned Single Judge has recorded the finding that order was in fact issued by the Managing
Director and the copy of the same was forwarded to the petitioner by Executive Director (HR).
3. Learned counsel for the appellant again submits that under the transfer policy the proposal has to be submitted by the Chief Engineer and after the same being countersigned by Executive Director (HR.), it should have been approved by the Managing Director.
4. Mr. Piyush Garg, learned counsel for the Corporation placed before us the relevant part of the Note-sheet and which indicates that the proposal was submitted by the Executive Director (HR) and it has been duly approved by the Managing Director. The Note-sheet bears the signatures of the Managing Director on the proposal, as such, the contention is not sustainable.
5. Moreover, it is not disputed that the transfer of the appellant is merely from one sub-station to another sub-station within same district, and as such, learned Single Judge has rightly not interfered with the transfer order.
6. The Appeal lacks merit and is accordingly dismissed.
7. Pending application, if any, also stands disposed of.
(MANOJ KUMAR GUPTA, C. J.)
(SUBHASH UPADHYAY, J.) Dated: 19.06.2026 Kaushal