IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition No. 169 of 2008 (S/B) Anil Kumar Singh S/o Shri V.P. Singh Presently posted as Assistant Regional Transport Officer (Administration) Dehradun Uttarakhand. ……Petitioner. Versus 1. State of Uttarakhand through Principal Secretary Uttarakhand Sashan, Dehradun. 2. Transport Commissioner Uttarakhand, Dehradun. 3. State of Uttar Pradesh through Principal Secretary Transport U.P. Lucknow. 4. Transport Commissioner Uttar Pradesh at Lucknow. 5. Secretary State Level Advisory Committee U.P. Reorganisation Department Lucknow. .……….Respondents. Shri Gopal Narain, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri P.C. Bisht, learned Brief Holder for respondents No. 1 and 2. Smt. Bina Pandey, Advocate of respondents No. 3,4 and 5. Coram:Hon’ble Prafulla C. Pant, J. Hon’ble B.S. Verma, J. Oral:-Hon’ble Prafulla C. Pant, J. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. By means of this writ petition, the petitioner has sought writ in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to take decision on the mutual transfer application dated 27.05.2008, made by the petitioner viz-a-viz Ramesh Chandra Kalra in accordance with 2 the Government Orders dated 15.09.2004 and 19.01.2007. 3. Briefly stated the facts relating to this case are that petitioner is a Assistant Regional Transport Officer with the State of Uttarakhand. Shri Ramesh Chandra Kalra, holds equivalent post with the Transport Department of State of U.P. In terms of G.O. No. 14/279/2002-SR (S), dated 15.09.2004, issued by Government of India, Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances & Pensions, Department of Personnel and Training read with G.O. No. 748/XXXVII/04/2001, dated 19.07.2007, issued by Uttarakhand Sashan, the petitioner made a representation for mutual transfer with aforesaid Ramesh Chandra Kalra by moving an application. However, when no decision was taken on his representation, this writ petition is filed. 4. In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of respondents No. 1 and 2, it has been admitted that petitioner has made a representation, as stated in the writ petition. However, it is stated that his earlier representation was not in a proper format but later he moved application in the prescribed form. It is further stated in the counter affidavit, filed by respondents No. 1 and 2 that vide letter dated 263/IX/420/2008, dated 27.08.2008, the Transport Department of State of Uttarakhand, has recommended the case of the petitioner for mutual transfer. 3 5. Attention of this Court is drawn to letter No. 3841 E/2008-T-2202 E/2000, dated 31.12.2008, issued by Transport Commissioner, U.P., who has given its consent to the Principal Secretary of the Transport Department of Government of U.P., for mutual transfer of Anil Kumar Singh (petitioner) vice R.C. Kalra. 6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, and after going through the papers on record, and the Government Orders, applicable to the case of the petitioner, this writ petition is disposed of with the following direction:- 1. State Level Advisory Committee, U.P. Reorganization Department, Lucknow, shall take decision on the representation of the petitioner for his mutual transfer vice Shri R.C. Kalra within a period of two months from the date of certified copy of this order is produced before said authority, and communicate the same to the Government of India for further action in the matter. (B.S. Verma, J.) (Prafulla C. Pant, J.) Dt:02.03.2009 Sweta 4 5 6 7 8 9