COURT NO.2 IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition (S/S) 7119/2001 Rajesh Kumar & Another …….Petitioners Versus State of Uttaranchal through its Secretary, Revenue & Other …….Respondents Sri Sharad Sharma, learned Counsel for the petitioners. Sri H.M. Raturi, learned Standing Counsel for the State. 01.04.2008 Hon’ble P.C. Verma, J. By means of this writ petition the petitioners assail the seniority list dated 29.10.2001 contained as Annexure No. 7 to the writ petition. In this seniority list, petitioner no. 1 is placed at serial no. 33 and petitioner no. 2 is placed at serial no. 32. Challenge raised is based on the ground that the respondents have wrongly applied the Government Order dated 27.3.1995 issued by the Divisional Commissioner, Board of Revenue of the then existing State of U.P. contained as Annexure No. 6 to the writ petition. Stand taken in the counter affidavit to defend the seniority list published by the respondents is based on this Government Order only. This Government Order provides that if a member of ministerial staff of Collectorate is transferred from one district to another district, he will be placed at the bottom in the seniority list of the cadre. 2. Learned Counsel for the petitioners submitted that the application of the Government Order, in the facts and circumstances of the present case, is misplaced inasmuch as it is not a transfer in the sense the Government Order has been issued, rather it is a transfer of the existing district of Saharanpur to district Haridwar which was newly carved out from district Saharanpur. 3. District Haridwar was carved out in the year 1988 from district Saharanpur. The petitioners were members of the ministerial staff of undivided district of Saharanpur, meaning thereby they were exercising their ministerial powers and performing the ministerial duties in respect of the territory which formed part of the district Haridwar before it was carved out. The transfer was on the option to the new district from the principal district for the purpose of establishment. During the transitory period there was adjustment of the members of the ministerial staff. Two members which were earlier transferred to district Haridwar had shown their willingness to go to district Saharanpur and in the same manner two were transferred. Therefore, it is not a transfer on request or on administrative ground. It is a simple transfer for the establishment of the Collectorate of district Haridwar, which was earlier part of district Saharanpur. Therefore, I find force in the contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioners that the Government Order dated 27.3.1995 has wrongly been applied in the present case. Accordingly, it is directed that the petitioners’ original seniority in the district Saharanpur shall be maintained in the district Haridwar. It is worth to mention here that the petitioners were working on the higher pay scale and after their transfer they have been placed below the employees who were given that pay scale after substantial gap of time. 4. For the reasons recorded above, the writ petition is allowed. Respondents are directed to place the petitioners according to their seniority in District Saharanpur in the impugned seniority list. No order as to costs. (P.C. Verma, J.) Prabodh