Uttarakhand High Court
WPSB/372/2026 of AZRA PARVEEN Vs STATE OF UTTARAKHAND on 19 June 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SHRI MANOJ KUMAR GUPTA AND HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE SUBHASH UPADHYAY 19TH JUNE, 2026 WRIT PETITION (S/B) No. 372 OF 2026 Dr. Azra Parveen. …Petitioner Versus State of Uttarakhand and others.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
AT NAINITAL
HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SHRI MANOJ KUMAR GUPTA
AND
HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE SUBHASH UPADHYAY
19TH JUNE, 2026
WRIT PETITION (S/B) No. 372 OF 2026
Dr. Azra Parveen.
…Petitioner
Versus
State of Uttarakhand and others.
…Respondents
Counsel for the petitioner.
: Mr. M.C. Pant, learned counsel.
Counsel for the respondents.
: Mr. J.C. Pande, learned Standing Counsel for the State of Uttarakhand.
JUDGMENT : (per Shri 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, who is presently posted as Principal at Government Degree College, Doshapani, which is a remote station, is aggrieved by the order of her transfer dated 09.06.2026, by which she has been transferred in the same capacity to Government Degree College, Haldwani (Town), District Nainital - an accessible place.
2. The case of the petitioner is that she is 63 years of age, and falls under the definition of ‘senior employee’. She, while submitting the option form, clearly stated that she does not wish to be transferred to an accessible place, as she had already attained age of 63 years. However, the respondents have transferred the petitioner to an accessible place, in the annual transfer chain, without taking into consideration the said fact.
3. Learned State Counsel submits that the petitioner had completed her maximum tenure at a remote place and, therefore, she was due to be transferred, and thus has rightly been transferred. He further submits that the transferred station is one of the places, which the petitioner had opted for.
4. It is a matter of common knowledge that employees are not willing to be transferred to remote places. The petitioner, who is a senior employee, had showed her disinclination to be transferred to an accessible area. Section 7(d)(i) of the Uttarakhand Annual Transfer for Public Servants Act, 2017 exempts senior employees from being transferred from accessible area to remote area. The said exemption will apply with greater force in case a senior employee is seeking exemption from compulsory transfer from remote area to accessible area. The respondents have effected the transfer without examining the scheme and purpose of the provisions of the Transfer Act.
5. In view of the above, we grant liberty to the petitioner to make representation, along with attested copy of the instant order, to the Competent Authority against her transfer, and further provide that, in case such a representation is made within one week from today, the operation of the impugned transfer order shall remain in abeyance until the representation is decided.
6. The writ petition stands disposed of.
7. All pending applications stand disposed of accordingly.
______________________ MANOJ KUMAR GUPTA, C.J.
___________________ SUBHASH UPADHYAY, J.
Dt: 19th June, 2026 Rahul
RAHUL PRAJAPATI Digitally signed by RAHUL PRAJAPATI DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, 2.5.4.20=aa4fa3bee6691397758b14516ed3e66e6 1bf4c848741983ed8c39e4145cf1dab, postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND, serialNumber=303B55CC3063D34AC45BF8A192F CAD15C390A1AAD7B39857D2540AE4C28A4898, cn=RAHUL PRAJAPATI Date: 2026.06.19 13:35:31 +05'30'