IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition No. 257 (S/S) of 2009 Vijay Singh Padiyar. … ………Petitioner. V e r s u s State of Uttarakhand and others. ……..Respondents. Mr. B.P. Nautiyal, Advocate for petitioner. Mr. H.M. Raturi, Standing Counsel for State of Uttarakhand. Hon’ble V.K. Bist, J. 1. By means of this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 02.07.2008 by which the petitioner was transferred from District – Uttarkashi to District – Haridwar and order dated 02.03.2009 by which petitioner was relieved. 2. Brief facts of the case as narrated in the writ petition are that petitioner is working as Supply Inspector in the Food and Civil Supply Department, Uttarakhand. On 02.07.2008, he was transferred from District – Uttarakashi to District – Haridwar. Feeling aggrieved, petitioner approached respondent no. 4 with a request not to relieve him from Government Food Grain Store, Jhala, Uttarkashi to District – Haridwar. Since no one was deputed to take over charge from the petitioner respondent no. 4 permitted the petitioner to continue on the post. On 23.01.2009, petitioner was directed to hand over the charge to one Sri Padam Lal, Supply Inspector, who was transferred from District – Tehri and to join at Food Grain Store, Dhauntari, District – Uttarkashi. In compliance of order dated 23.01.2009, petitioner handed over the charge to Sri Padam Singh and joined his duty at Food Grain Store, Dhauntari. On 02.03.2009, at about 6.00 p.m. impugned order was served upon the petitioner whereby order dated 23.01.2009 was amended and petitioner was relieved to District – Haridwar. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has challenged the impugned orders on the following grounds; first, the petitioner is at the verge of retirement and without considering this fact respondents have transferred the petitioner. Secondly, prior to issuance of impugned orders, respondents have not invited options of three places for petitioner’s transfer and as such, violated their own transfer policy. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that petitioner is having unblemished service record and there is no complaint from any corner. He further submitted that the petitioner is at the verge of retirement and he should be permitted to work at present place of posting. He further submitted that respondents are violating their own transfer policy. 5. During the course of argument, learned counsel for the petitioner has confined his prayer only to the extent that he may be permitted to file fresh representation before respondent no. 1 and respondent no. 1 may be directed to decide the petitioner’s representation within stipulated time. Learned standing counsel has no objection to the said prayer. 6. In view of the aforesaid discussion, the petitioner is permitted to file fresh representation before respondent no. 1 along with certified copy of this order within three weeks from today and in case, representation is filed within time, respondent no. 1 is directed to decide the representation of the petitioner within a period of one month from the date of production of certified copy of this order. Stay order dated 01.05.2009 passed by this court shall remain operative till the decision is taken by the respondent no. 1 on the representation of the petitioner. In case certified copy of this order is not served on respondent no. 1 within three weeks from today, the interim order passed in favour of the petitioner shall stand vacated. 7. With this direction, writ petition is disposed of. No order as to costs. (V.K. Bist, J) 23.06.2009 SKS