IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition No. 862 of 2006 (S/S) Anil Gupta S/o Sri Bal Krishna Gupta ..……… Petitioner Versus State of Uttarakhand and others ……… Respondents. With Writ Petition No. 161 of 2004 (S/S) Kewala Nand Pathak S/o Late Sri Heera Ballabh Pathak ..……… Petitioner Versus State of Uttarakhand and others ……… Respondents. With Writ Petition No. 870 of 2006 (S/S) Smt. Savita Kharkwal S/o Shri Dinesh Chandra Kharkwal ..……… Petitioner Versus State of Uttarakhand and others ……… Respondents. Mr. Sharad Sharma, Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. J.S. Bisht and Mr. Rajendra Dobhal, Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Manoj Sah, the learned counsel for the petitioners Mr. Subhash Upadhyaya, Brief Holder for the respondents/State. Hon’ble Tarun Agarwala, J. Heard Shri Sharad Sharma, the learned senior counsel assisted by Shri J.S. Bisht, Shri Rajendra Dobhal, the learned senior counsel assisted by Shri Manoj Sah, the learned counsel for the petitioners and Shri Subhash Upadhyaya, the learned Brief Holder for the respondents. This group of petitions raise a common issue and the same is being decided together. For facility, the facts of writ petition No.862 of 2006 (S/S) is being taken into consideration. The petitioner was initially appointed as an Assistant Accountant in District Rural Development Agency by the District Magistrate / Chairman of the District Rural Development Agency 2 in the year 1999. The petitioner was promoted as an Accountant by the Commissioner and was posted as such from Dehradun to Haridwar. Since 1999, the petitioner is functioning as an Accountant in Haridwar. By the impugned order dated 21st June, 2006, the Commissioner issued an order transferring the petitioner in the same capacity from Haridwar to Chamoli. The petitioner, being aggrieved by the said transfer order, has filed the present writ petition. Similar is the case in the other connected writ petitions except in the case of Kewala Nand Pathak Vs. State and others, WPSS No. 161 of 2004, wherein the said petitioner was transferred from Bageshwar to Almora by an order dated 20th February, 2004 but within three days, the said transfer order was cancelled by an order dated 23rd February, 2004, against which, the said writ petition was filed. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is, that the District Rural Development Agency is a society which has been registered under the Societies Registration Act and that the said agency is funded by the Central Govt. as well as by the State Govt. The object of this agency is to provide integrated and planned rural development of the District. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is, that the appointment of the petitioners was a district cadre appointment, in as much as, each district had a different District Rural Development Agency which was registered under the Societies Registration Act and that there are no rules or regulations framed for transferring an employee from one agency to another development agency in another district. On the strength of this assertion, interim orders were passed staying the transfer orders. A counter affidavit has been filed by the respondents indicating that the State Govt. had issued a Government Order dated 17th March, 1994 wherein the service conditions for 3 appointments to be made in District Rural Development Agency was regulated. Under this Government Order dated 17th March, 1994, the Commissioner was given the power for appointment as well as for promotion. Clause 13 of the Government Order dated 17th March, 1994 gave express power to the Commissioner to transfer an employee from one agency to another agency. Based on this Government Order dated 17th March, 1994 an order dated 10th November, 1999 was issued by which the Commissioner promoted the petitioner as an Accountant and also transferred him from the Development Agency Dehradun to the Development Agency Hardiwar which was accepted by the petitioner without any protest and, since then, the petitioner was functioning as an Accountant in Haridwar. In paragraph 5 and 6 of the counter affidavit it has also been stated that the Development Agency of Haridwar and Chamoli have accepted the Government Order dated 17th March, 1994 and have resolved that the service conditions of the employees of Development Agency will vest with the State Govt. In view of the aforesaid admitted facts, it is clear that the service conditions of the petitioner are now governed by a Government Order dated 17th March, 1994. The Commissioner has been given the power to promote the petitioner as well as to transfer him from one District to another District. Admittedly, the petitioner was promoted as an Accountant in the year 1999 and by the same order was transferred to Haridwar which he accepted without any protest. Consequently, once the petitioner has been transferred outside the district of his original appointment, i.e., from Dehradun, he could not now turn around and say that the State Govt. had no power to transfer him from one district to another. In any case, the impugned order, which has been passed, is in consonance with the Government Order dated 17th March, 4 1994. In view of the aforesaid, the transfer order does not suffer from any error of law. In similar circumstances in writ petition No. 115 of 2008 (S/B), Ravindra Kumar Rajwar Vs. State of Uttarakhand and two others, a Division Bench of this Court by a judgment dated 9th September, 2008 held that the Government Order dated 17th March, 1994 gave express power to the Commissioner for appointment and transfer anywhere in the State. The said judgment is squarely applicable to the present facts and circumstances of the case. In view of the aforesaid, the writ petition fails and is dismissed. Since the transfer order had remained stayed for the last several years, no useful purpose would be served in enforcing the transfer order at this stage. It would be open to the Commissioner to pass a fresh order of transfer in accordance with law. In so far as connected WPSS No. 161 of 2004, Kewala Nand Pathak Vs. State of Uttarakhand and others is concerned, admittedly, the petitioner is on a transferable post and could be transferred. Since the order of cancellation of the transfer order was stayed, no useful purpose would be served in reviewing the said order. The said writ petition is also disposed of with the direction to the Commissioner to pass a fresh order of transfer, if required and, if necessary. Let a copy of the judgment be placed in connected writ petitions. (Tarun Agarwala, J.) Dated 17.05.2010 Shiv