IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition No.1024 of 2010 (S/S) Kishan Singh Bisht & others ………..Petitioners Versus State of Uttarakhand and others …….Respondents Shri Hari Mohan Bhatia, learned counsel for the petitioners. Shri Dinesh Gahtori, learned Standing Counsel for the State. Dated: 22nd November, 2010 Hon’ble V.K. Bist, J. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. This petition has been filed by the petitioners for quashing the transfer order dated 27.10.2010, passed by the respondent no.1, by which the petitioners were transferred on administrative ground. 3. The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that the work of the petitioners has always been found satisfactory during their past service and there is nothing on which basis the petitioners could be transferred on administrative ground. 4. Respondents filed their counter affidavit. In their counter affidavit, the respondents have submitted that though there is no complaint against the petitioners but undated letter was received by the Director General (Technical Service) in which it was mentioned that petitioners are working in a district for several years. Thereafter, after examining the records it was found that the petitioners were working in the Sugam area for a long period and the petitioners were transferred. It is 2 further mentioned in the counter affidavit that the impugned transfer order is not punitive in nature but has been passed for providing regular Fire Service and Emergency Service in hill districts. 5. Learned Standing Counsel for the State submitted that infact there was a complaint by some staff members that some of the employees are working in the Sugam Area for last several years and due to this reason after examining the complaint and records, the petitioners were transferred to hill area. He could not point out the reason on which basis the petitioners were transferred on administrative ground. He fairly conceded that there is nothing on record on which the petitioners could be transferred on administrative ground. 6. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, the Court is satisfied with the argument of the learned counsel for the petitioners that there is nothing on record on which basis the petitioner could be transferred on administrative ground. Consequently, the writ petition is allowed. Impugned order dated 27.10.2010 passed by the respondent no.1 is quashed. 7. No order as to costs. 8. Stay vacation application (CLMA No.9534 of 2010) also stands disposed of. (V.K. Bist, J.) Arpan 22.11.2010