IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition No. (SS) of 1016 of 2011 Constable AP 231 Sachin Kumar ….Petitioner Versus State of Uttarakhand and others ..Respondents Present : Mr. Pankaj Miglani, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. N.P. Sah, Standing Counsel for the State of Uttarakhand. Hon’ble Sudhanshu Dhulia, J. (Oral) 1. Heard Mr. Pankaj Miglani, Advocate for the petitioner and Mr. N.P. Sah, Standing Counsel for the State of Uttarakhand. 2. The petitioner is a constable in Civil Police, Government of Uttarakhand. The wife of the petitioner is also a constable in Civil Police. Both husband and wife have been allotted a Government accommodation at Bindal Police Chowki, Police Station Cantt, district Dehradun. Apparently, there was a dispute between the wife of the petitioner and another lady constable who was staying around the same official accommodation. The matter reached the superior authorities and they transferred the petitioner and the concerned lady constable. The petitioner was transferred to Rudraprayag and other lady constable was transferred to Chamoli. The transfer order, however, does not state this fact. It only states that the petitioner and another lady constable have been transferred on “administrative grounds”. 3. The petitioner has relied upon a decision of Full Bench of this Court in Smt. Damyanti Bisht Vs. State of Uttarakahand reported in 2008 (2) U.D., 617, where it has held that though transfers on administrative grounds are permissible but the authority concerned must assign the reasons. Relevant portion of the aforesaid judgment reads as under:- “ We, while upholding the aforesaid view, substitute our own opinion by laying down that even though a transfer order on administrative ground per se is not bad in law, no person can be transferred on an administrative ground unless before issuing the transfer order, the Authority competent to transfer has arrived at and recorded his satisfaction, upon due verification and confirmation, about the existence and truthfulness of anyone of the three factors/ grounds/ considerations warranting the transfer of the person concerned.” 4. Evidently, no reasons while transferring the petitioner on administrative ground were assigned by the concerned authority. Although the reasons have been assigned in the counter affidavit, the reasons were liable to be assigned in the impugned order which has not been done. This Court vide interim order dated 17.8.2011 though did not interfere with the transfer of the petitioner, had directed that the initial Government accommodation of the petitioner will not be taken away from him. This Court has been informed that an independent application of the wife of the petitioner for retaining the accommodation has been rejected. It has also been brought to the notice of this Court that although no interim order was passed in favour of the petitioner, the petitioner has not complied with the impugned order and has not given joining at Rudraprayag. 5. This being the fact of the matter, the present writ petition is disposed of with the direction that if the petitioner makes a representation before the concerned authorities, the authorities may look into the fact and more particularly the fact that they may explore the possibilities of posting of the petitioner and his wife at the same place, as these are the provisions in Government order which are admitted by the learned counsel appearing for the State, and decide the representation as expeditiously as possible but definitely within a period of six weeks from the date a certified copy of this order is produced before the concerned authority. 6. It is, however, made clear that till the disposal of the representation, although no interference is called for with the impugned transfer order, the family of the petitioner shall not be evicted from the disputed accommodation. The concerned authority though will be at liberty to pass appropriate orders after disposing of the representation of the petitioner. 7. With the directions made above, writ petition is disposed of. 8. No order as to costs. (Sudhanshu Dhulia, J) 24.11.2011 Avneet