SUNIL KUMAR GUPTA vs STATE OF UTTARAKHAND

UKHC010025092025

2026:UHC:10070-DB


IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
AT NAINITAL




HON’BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE SRI MANOJ KUMAR TIWARI
AND
HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SUBHASH UPADHYAY



WRIT PETITION (S/B) NO. 44 OF 2025


ND
2 NOVEMBER, 2026

Sunil Kumar Gupta …… Petitioner
Versus

State of Uttarakhand and others …… Respondents










Counsel for the petitioner : Mr. Yogesh Kumar Pacholia, learned
counsel

Counsel for the respondents : Mr. Gajendra Tripathi, learned
Standing Counsel with Mr. M.S.
Bisht, learned Brief Holder for the
State


The Court made the following:


(per Sri Manoj Kumar Tiwari, A.C.J.)
JUDGMENT:





1) The petitioner is serving as Senior Veterinary Officer





under the State Government. Earlier he was posted at
Veterinary Hospital, Natwaad, District Uttarkashi between
22.07.2010 to 09.08.2022 and, he was thereafter transferred
to Veterinary Hospital, Vikasnagar, Dehradun, where he joined
on 10.08.2022. Petitioner was again transferred from
Veterinary Hospital, Vikasnagar to Veterinary Hospital, Pokhri,
District Chamoli vide order dated 13.02.2025. Thus, feeling
aggrieved, petitioner approached this Court challenging his
1

UKHC010025092025

2026:UHC:10070-DB

transfer and also challenging the stipulation that his transfer
was made on administrative ground.
2) Learned counsel for the petitioner contended
that since there is no complaint or adverse material against
the petitioner, therefore, his transfer could not have been
made on administrative ground. It is further contended
that petitioner has served for 15 long years in different
veterinary hospitals in Uttarkashi, all of which are classified
as ‘Durgam’ places and, he served at Vikasnagar for less
than 02 years, therefore, he could not have been re-
transferred to Chamoli by the impugned order. Learned
counsel drew attention of the Court towards Section 18(5)
of the Uttarakhand Annual Transfer For Public Servants Act,
2017 (for short hereinafter referred to as ‘the Transfer
Act’). The procedure of Posting on Appointment /
Promotions and other Transfer is provided under Section 18
of the Transfer Act. Section 18(5) is extracted hereunder :
“18(5) The competent authority may issue posting/
transfer orders besides the transfer to be made as per
clause (1) to (4) aforesaid in separate and different
period also and it shall not be necessary to bring such
cases before the transfer committee:
Provided that on transfers made on administrative
grounds the competent authority shall have to take
approval from the one rank higher officer.”

3) It is contended by learned counsel for the
petitioner that the transfer is violative of Section 18(5) of
the Transfer Act, inasmuch as, the approval from one rank
2

UKHC010025092025

2026:UHC:10070-DB

higher officer has also not been obtained while transferring
the petitioner on administrative ground. It is further
contended that as per the Transfer Act, transfers made
th
annually after 30 of June, also require approval from the
one rank higher officer, but such approval was not obtained
in the case of the petitioner.
4) Learned State Counsel submits that the charge
against the petitioner was that he is not operating
ultrasound machine and is not conducting X-rays on X-ray
unit, even though the machines for that purpose are
available at Veterinary Hospital, Vikasnagar. The other
charge against the petitioner was that he is not obeying the
instructions issued by the superior officers.
5) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
X-ray machine is out of order since long and petitioner had
requested the Chief Veterinary Officer to get the machines
repaired. He further submits that the Chief Veterinary
Officer, Dehradun referred the letters written by the
petitioner to the Director, Animal Husbandry, Government
of Uttarakhand on 07.03.2025.
6) Learned counsel for the petitioner refers to the
documents enclosed as Annexure-6 to the counter-affidavit
filed on behalf of State Government in support of his
3

UKHC010025092025

2026:UHC:10070-DB

contention that substantial numbers of surgeries were
conducted by petitioner in March 2025 alone.
7) We find substance in the submission made by
learned counsel that petitioner’s transfer was made on
administrative ground without taking approval from the one
rank higher officer which was a condition precedent as
provided in the Proviso contained in Section 18(5) of the
Transfer Act. On this ground alone, we are inclined to
interfere with the impugned transfer order.
8) Accordingly, the writ petition succeeds and the
impugned transfer order dated 13.02.2025 is hereby set
aside.
9) Pending application(s), if any, also stand
disposed of.
_________________________
MANOJ KUMAR TIWARI, A.C.J.




_________________
SUBHASH UPADHYAY, J.


ND
Dt: 2 NOVEMBER, 2026
Negi



Digitally signed by HIMANSHU NEGI
DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF
UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF
UTTARAKHAND,
2.5.4.20=bb3b60774012c1ef1dae20d13
aaf116e73351fdaf6878326386908a7f90
d5757, postalCode=263001,
st=UTTARAKHAND,
serialNumber=75BD9D0FB7F4A80990F
C51A722A6BC552D470EB4FD2F88DDF
7C18DB2A1524A4D, cn=HIMANSHU
NEGI
Date: 2026.11.06 17:54:22 +05'30'
HIMANS
HU NEGI
4