The Uttarakhand High Court has clarified that rejection of a transfer request cannot be based solely on the absence of a reliever; competent authorities must proactively ensure relief arrangements, especially where the employee has served for an extended period. The decision upholds established precedent and serves as binding authority within Uttarakhand, providing guidance for service transfer matters in government departments.
Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Case Name | WPSS/1685/2025 of RAHUL KUMAR RAVI Vs STATE OF UTTARAKHAND |
| CNR | UKHC010161782025 |
| Date of Registration | 13-10-2025 |
| Decision Date | 15-10-2025 |
| Disposal Nature | ALLOWED |
| Judgment Author | HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR TIWARI |
| Court | High Court of Uttarakhand |
| Precedent Value | Binding within Uttarakhand |
| Type of Law | Service Law – Administrative Law |
| Questions of Law | Whether an employee’s transfer request can be rejected solely on the ground of non-availability of a reliever at the current post? |
| Ratio Decidendi |
The Court held that the absence of a reliever cannot, by itself, be a valid ground to reject a transfer request, especially when the employee has already served a long tenure at one place. The obligation lies with the competent authority to arrange for a replacement when passing transfer orders. Inaction in not posting a reliever cannot be used to indefinitely stall an employee’s transfer. The impugned rejection order was therefore set aside, and directions for consideration in the next transfer session were given. |
| Facts as Summarised by the Court | The petitioner’s transfer request from Ukhimath (after 14 years’ service at the same station) was rejected solely on the ground of non-availability of a reliever. The writ challenged this administrative rejection. |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All subordinate courts and administrative authorities in Uttarakhand |
| Persuasive For | Other High Courts addressing similar service law questions |
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- The Court clarifies that administrative authorities cannot reject a government servant’s transfer request merely due to the lack of a reliever; arrangements for relief should be proactively managed.
- Prolonged service at a single posting (14 years in this case) strengthens the employee’s case for transfer and compels administrative action.
- Lawyers can cite this judgment when contesting rejection of transfer on grounds of absence of a reliever, to shift the onus back to the competent authority.
- The judgment mandates reconsideration of such cases in the ensuing transfer session, ensuring fair treatment.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- The High Court observed that administrative rejection of transfer solely because of non-availability of a reliever is unjustified, especially when the employee has already completed a lengthy tenure at the same station.
- The reasoning focused on the duty of the competent authority: arranging both for the outgoing and the replacement posting when exercising transfer power.
- The Court characterized the cited reason as “invalid” and pointed out that inaction by the authority should not burden the petitioner.
- The impugned order was set aside, and a direction was issued to consider the petitioner’s transfer during the next transfer session with necessary consequential arrangements.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner
- Challenged rejection of transfer request based solely on absence of a reliever.
- Highlighted inaction on part of the authorities in making necessary posting arrangements.
- Emphasized that he had already served for 14 years at the same station.
Respondent (State of Uttarakhand)
- Stated that transfer could not be effected due to non-availability of a reliever at Ukhimath.
- Relied on the administrative need to maintain continuity at the post.
Factual Background
The petitioner, a Junior Engineer, sought transfer from Ukhimath, District Rudraprayag, after completing 14 years of service at that location. The Department rejected his application solely on the grounds that no reliever was available to take his place. The petitioner challenged this decision by writ petition, seeking court intervention for fair consideration of his transfer.
Statutory Analysis
The judgment involved interpretation of administrative principles concerning government service transfers. The Court did not refer to any specific statutes but examined the legality of the administrative reasoning for rejecting a transfer.
Dissenting / Concurring Opinion Summary
No dissenting or concurring opinions were delivered; the judgment was delivered by a single judge.
Procedural Innovations
No new procedural directions or innovations were made; the court issued a straightforward set-aside and direction for reconsideration in the next transfer session.
Alert Indicators
- Precedent Followed – The judgment reaffirms existing legal principles governing the discretion of authorities in processing service transfer requests and the necessity for administrative action to enable legitimate transfers.