IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL. Writ Petition No. 251(S/S) 2007 Manoj Kargeti S/o Sri P.B. Kargeti, Presently posted as Junior Engineer, Minor Irrigation Department, New Tehri, Tehri Garhwal. ……Petitioner Versus 1. State of Uttarakhand through Secretary Irrigation, Secretariat, Dehradun, 2. Chief Executive Engineer, Minor Irrigation Department, Dehradun. ……Respondents. Sri B.P. Nautiyal, learned counsel for the petitioner. Sri N.P. Sah, learned Standing Counsel for the respondents. Hon’ble M.M. Ghildiyal, J. Heard Sri B.P. Nautiyal, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri N.P. Sah, learned Standing Counsel for the State of Uttarakhand/ respondents. By means of this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 25th November 2006 by which the petitioner working as Junior Engineer in Minor Irrigation Department, New Tehri, has been transferred to Ukhimath, district Rudraprayag. The petitioner has assailed the impugned order on various counts. Firstly, he was transferred from Kotdwar to New Tehri vide order dated 6th August 2005 and he has been there at New Tehri for about 1½ years. Secondly, the petitioner has been transferred in mid session and the transfer order does not speak whether the transfer is being made in public interest or on administrative ground. Thirdly, the petitioner is going to be retired after attaining age of superannuation in the month of May 2008 and there is a Govt. Order to the effect that the persons who are going to be retired in near future within a span of two years, they should not be transferred as far as possible and if it is necessary, options may be invited from the person effected for three places of their choice on priority basis. From perusal of the impugned transfer order dated 25th November 2006 it reveals that the same has been passed on the recommendation of Transfer Committee dated 20.11.2006 constituted under Govt. Order dated 29th April 2005. from bear perusal of G.O. dated 29th April 2005, I find that there exists a provision, which directs for constitution of a Transfer Committee in order to make transfers. The relevant Provision is quoted hereunder:- “(i) dkfeZdksa ds LFkkukarj.k fd,s tkus gsrq 'kklu Lrj ij] foHkkxk/;{k] e.My ,oa tuin Lrj ij izR;sd foHkkxokj LFkk;h LFkkukarj.k lfefr;ksa dk xBu fd;k tk;] ftlesa foHkkx ds vf/kdkfj;ksa ds vfrfjDr ,d vf/kdkjh nwljs foHkkx ds Hkh ukfer fd, tk;saA 'kklu Lrj ij voLFkkiuk fodkl vk;qDr 'kk[kk] ,Q0vkj0Mh0lh0 'kk[kk rFkk lekt dY;k.k vk;qDr 'kk[kk dks NksM+dj vU; foHkkxksa esa LFkkukUrj.k lfefr esa ,d vf/kdkjh dkfeZd foHkkx }kjk ukfer fd;k tk;sxkA okf"kZd LFkkukUrj.k@ ifjorZu@ fujLrhdj.k gsrq izkIr lHkh izLrko lacaf/kr foHkkx }kjk bl gsrq xfBr lfefr ds lEeq[k izLrqr fd;s tk;saxsA lfefr bl izdkj izkIr leLr izLrkoksa ij fopkj djus ds i'pkr~ LFkkukUrj.k uhfr ds vUrxZr lacaf/kr dkfeZdksa ds LFkkukUr.k djus dh laLrqfr djsxh vkSj ml laLrqfr ds vk/kkj ij LFkkukaUrj.k vkns’k lacaf/kr foHkkx@foHkkxk/;{k] tSlh Hkh fLFkfr gks }kjk fuxZr fd;s tk;saxsaA^^ Thus, it is apparent that the Departments have been directed to constitute a committee for making annual transfers of their employees, who are likely to be transferred in the month of June every year. Para-11 of the aforesaid order specifically states that all the annual transfers shall be made on or before 30th June of the relevant year and after 30th June, if any transfer is to be made on the recommendation of the Committee; prior approval of the higher authority is required. From perusal of the impugned order as well as the Govt. Order mentioned above, it does not appear that prior approval of the Higher Authority was obtained in making impugned transfer. Further, the transfer, on the basis of recommendations of Transfer Committee, should have been made upto 30th June, whereas the present transfer order has been passed on 25th November 2006. The petitioner, during the course of arguments, has stated that he has already moved representation before the appropriate authority for cancellation of impugned transfer order on the aforesaid grounds however, the respondents have not paid any heed towards the representation. In the circumstances, the petitioner is directed to move fresh representation within 2 weeks from today and the Authority concerned shall take decision on the same within a period of three weeks from the dated of production of a certified copy of this order alongwith the representation. Till the representation is decided or till 30th April 2007, whichever is earlier, the impugned transfer order dated 25th November 2006 shall be kept in abeyance. With these directions, the writ petition is finally disposed of. No order as to costs. (M.M. Ghilidyal, J.) March 23, 2007: NCM: