IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Special Appeal No. 108 of 2007 Union of India and others ……… Appellants. Versus Jagdish Chandra Chhimwal .……. Respondent. Mr. Vikash Pandey, Standing Counsel (Central Govt.) for the appellants. Mr. J.P. Joshi, Advocate for the respondent. Date of Judgment: 28.08.2010 JUDGMENT Coram: Hon’ble Barin Ghosh, C.J. Hon’ble V.K. Bist, J. BARIN GHOSH, C.J. (ORAL) Writ petitioner-respondent was an employee of Naval Dockyard, Mumbai. He was working as HSK-II, Engine Fitter. After having had worked as such for about ten years, the writ petitioner applied on 28th August 2003 for being transferred to National Hydrographic Office, Dehradun. National Hydrographic Officer, Dehradun has nothing to do with Naval Dockyard, Mumbai. National Hydrographic Office, Dehradun is also not an establishment of the Indian Navy. The application dated 28th August 2003 resulted in an order dated 19th May 2004, whereby and under, the writ petitioner was permanently transferred to National Hydrographic Office, Dehradun. As a condition for such transfer, the writ petitioner lost his seniority as was earned by him while serving the Naval Dockyard, Mumbai. In order to join National Hydrographic Office, Dehradun, the writ petitioner had to pay for all his travelling and other expenses. While the writ petitioner was thus permanently transferred to National Hydrographic Office, Dehradun and thereupon joined the National Hydrographic Office, Dehradun, his name was struck off from the strength of employees of National Dockyard, Mumbai. The said action, as it appears, tantamounted to deputation and simultaneous absorption. Surprisingly, despite the writ petitioner being no longer an employee of the National Dockyard, Mumbai or of Indian Navy by reason 2 of his said permanent transfer to National Hydrographic Office, Dehradun, an officer attached to Naval Dockyard, Mumbai, by an order dated 8th September 2005, purported to transfer the writ petitioner from National Hydrographic Office, Dehradun to Naval Dockyard, Mumbai. This action was assailed successfully in the writ petition, hence the present appeal. 2. Nowhere in the appeal any effort has been made to plead and substantiate that as on 8th September 2005 the person, who purported to issue the said transfer order, had jurisdiction over the writ petitioner. That being the situation, we think this appeal should be dismissed with exemplary costs, but we have, with great effort, restrained us from doing so. 3. It goes without saying that after having had permanently transferred an employee with a condition that by reason of such transfer, he looses his seniority earned until the date of such transfer, by a simple order of transfer, he cannot be transferred to yet another place, as has been held in the judgment and order under appeal. 4. We, accordingly, dismissed the appeal for the reasons recorded above. Interim order stands vacated. (V.K. Bist, J.) (Barin Ghosh, C.J.) 28.08.2010 28.08.2010 Amit