Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2023 DIGILAW 111 (UTT)

Akhilesh Kumar Maurya v. State of Uttarakhand

2023-01-18

RAVINDRA MAITHANI

body2023
JUDGMENT Ravindra Maithani, J. - The challenge in this petition is made to the transfer orders dated 31.10.2022 and 11.01.2023, by which the petitioner has been transferred to Sumitra Nandan Pant Gallery, Kausani from Almora Museum. 2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that petitioner is a Photographer in the Almora Museum. He has been transferred as a Custodian in Sumitra Nandan Pant Gallery, Kausani. It is submitted that the post of Custodian is lower in the rank and carries lower pay scale. 4. The Court wanted to know from the learned counsel for the petitioner to indicate as to where is it written in the transfer order that the petitioner will work on a post, lower than the post, on which he has been working in Almora Museum. He could not indicate. The transfer order, which is annexure-2 to the petition, simply reveals that because of irregularities in Sumitra Nandan Pant Gallery, Kausani in its operation, the petitioner has been posted there, so that he may control the staff and ensure that the Sumitra Nandan Pant Gallery, Kausani is functional, as per rules. It does not provide that the petitioner has been appointed as a Custodian or transferred as a Custodian or his pay scale has been reduced. Even otherwise, pay scale of an employee cannot be lowered and he cannot be reduced in rank unless there are proceedings as per departmental rules. 5. The transfer has been done in public interest for managing Sumitra Nandan Pant Gallery, Kausani. The petitioner made a representation stating that his daughter is studying in 2nd Class, therefore, transfer would adversely affect her education. This representation is Annexure-4. This may not be a ground to challenge any transfer order, which is done in public interest. 6. Annexure-7 is a communication from the Authority, addressed to the petitioner. It records that, in fact, the petitioner absented himself from the duty and sent a medical leave certificate. This communication also reveals that the petitioner tried to influence the authorities politically, so that his transfer may be cancelled. It is definitely totally against any canons of service jurisprudence. 7. Transfers are not punishment. They are done in public interest or under some administrative exigencies. In the instant case, the transfer order reveals that it has been done in a public interest. It is definitely totally against any canons of service jurisprudence. 7. Transfers are not punishment. They are done in public interest or under some administrative exigencies. In the instant case, the transfer order reveals that it has been done in a public interest. The Court refrains to observe on the conduct of the petitioner, but pressurizing the superior officials politically or by some organization is an act, which in all situations should be deprecated. 8. There is no reason to make any interference. Hence, the writ petition deserves to be dismissed at the stage of admission. 9. The writ petition is dismissed in-limine.