HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, AT NAINITAL Writ Petition No.126 of 2010 (S/S) Smt. Savita Negi W/o Rajendra Singh Negi … Petitioner Versus State of Uttarakhand & others … Respondents Dated:- 19th March, 2010 Hon’ble Tarun Agarwala, J. Heard Mr. M. C. Pant, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. K. C. Tiwari, the learned Brief Holder for the State. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the transfer order was not passed in accordance with the transfer policy which was in existence in the year 2009. Since the petitioner did not comply with the transfer order, he was suspended and, consequently, the petitioner has now filed the writ petition in the month of March, 2010 praying for the quashing of the transfer order as well as for the quashing of the suspension order and all disciplinary proceedings initiated pursuant to the suspension order. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, this court does not find any merit in the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner. The transfer policy is not a statutory rule and thus cannot be enforced in a court of law. The transfer policy is only a guideline. Further, the petitioner is on a transferable post and has been working at the present place of posting for the last 8 years and is liable to be transferred irrespective of the transfer policy. The existence of a transfer policy is not material and what is material is the service conditions, which the petitioner admits that she is on a transferable post. Since the petitioner did not join the place of transfer, the authority concerned was justified in issuing an order of suspension. This Court, accordingly, does not find any error either in the transfer order or in the suspension order. The petition is dismissed. However, it is directed that the disciplinary authority will conclude the disciplinary proceedings and pass a final order within six months from the date of the production of a certified copy of this order. It has been stated that the petitioner is not getting subsistence allowance. This court further directs that if the petitioner moves an appropriate application before the appointing authority for payment of subsistence allowance, the authority concerned will pass an order on the said application within two weeks. (Tarun Agarwala, J.) Dated 19.03.2010 LSR