IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition No.147 of 2009 (S/B) Prem Prakash Tamta ………..Petitioner Versus State of Uttarakhand & others ….Respondents Shri C.D. Bahuguna, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri K.P. Upadhyay, Addl. C.S.C. for the State. Dated: 27th December, 2010 Coram: Hon’ble Barin Ghosh, C.J. Hon’ble V.K. Bist, J. Barin Ghosh, C.J. (Oral) In the present writ petition it was contended District Rural Development Agency, Udam Singh Nagar is an autonomous body and accordingly, people appointed in District Rural Development Agency, Udham Singh Nagar will remain appointed to District Rural Development Agency, Udham Singh Nagar and cannot be transferred to any other District Rural Development Agency. Accepting the same prima-facie, an interim order was passed on 20th October, 2009, and thereby, the transfer of petitioner by the transfer order dated 31st July, 2009, in so far as the same related to the petitioner, was stayed. 2. By the order impugned in the writ petition, three gentlemen including petitioner all of who were employees of DRDA were transferred from one DRDA to 2 another. In a writ petition registered as writ petition no. 115 (S/B) of 2008, it was contended before the Division Bench of this Court by one Ravindra Kumar Rajwar, as is being contended by the petitioner before us, that District Rural Development Agencies are independent autonomous bodies and accordingly, employees of one DRDA cannot be transferred to another DRDA. The Court noticed that at the request of the petitioner he was transferred on an earlier occasion from one DRDA to another. The Court also noticed the communication dated 17th March, 1994, in terms whereof employees of one DRDA can be transferred to another DRDA situate in the State. In that view of the matter, while disposing of the said writ petition, the Court by its order dated 9th September, 2008, refused to accept the contention that an employee of one DRDA cannot be transferred to another DRDA. A similar matter was considered by Division Bench of this Court in Special Appeal no.43 of 2009, in that also, a similar contention was raised. The Court however, did not notice the earlier order of the Division Bench nor did it take notice of the aforementioned Government Order dated 17th March, 1994. On the contrary, the Court proceeded on the basis that each DRDA is a separate registered society and accordingly, held that an employee of one society cannot be transferred to another society. In the instant case, there is no pleading that District Rural Development Agency, Udham Singh Nagar is a registered society. A vague pleading however has been made to the effect that each DRDA is an independent society registered independently in a district. 3. Further more, it appears that on 27th December, 2005, when the petitioner was working at DRDA, Bageshwar as investigator, he was promoted to the post of Assistant Engineer and was assigned the post of Assistant Engineer DRDA, Nainital. Petitioner accepted his said promotion and transfer. If one DRDA is a separate society then an employee of the said society cannot be transferred to another society. How then, an employee of one society can be promoted to a post available in another society? From the order dated 27th December, 2005, it appears that to the post of Assistant Engineer, DRDA Bageshwar, in which DRDA petitioner was working as investigator, was supplied by a person from Nainital. The said state of affair clearly indicates that petitioner, if was an employee of an independent society, could only be asked to discharge the duties of the promotional post at the society in which he was working, namely, at Bageshwar and not at Nainital. Still then, petitioner was asked to discharge duties of DRDA, Nainital. He did so, and thereby, accepted unconditionally, that he could be transferred from one DRDA to the other. It was improper and unjust on the part of petitioner, at a later stage, to contend that he cannot be transferred from one DRDA to the other. Petitioner is estopped by conduct from contending what he contended in the writ petition. We accordingly, vacate the interim order and at the same time dismiss the writ petition. 4. Before parting, it is our duty to point out that the latter order of the Division Bench referred to above, 4 was assailed by a Special Leave Petition before the Hon’ble Supreme Court, which was dismissed. Dismissal of the Special Leave Petition is not a confirmation of an order against which the Special Leave Petition was preferred. According to us, there is no authority even up to now that each DRDA is independently registered as an independent registered society. No facts to that effect have yet been gone in. Further more, petitioner in the instant case, could not, because of his conduct, contend what he contended in the writ petition. ( V.K. Bist , J.) ( Bar in Gh osh , C.J.) 27.12.2010 27.12.2010 Arti