Prior accident-related hardship did not justify setting aside the administrative transfer.

The appellant challenged a transfer order dated 25 July 2026, moving him from the Garhwal region to the Kumaun region on administrative grounds, and a relieving order dated 14 August 2026.

The learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition filed by the appellant and three others.

In appeal, the appellant additionally contended that an accident in 2025 would make the transfer exceptionally difficult for him.

Whether the transfer and relieving orders warranted interference on the grounds raised in the appeal.

Whether the appellant’s accident-related hardship justified a different outcome from that in the connected appeal.

The Court relied on its decision, delivered the same day, in Special Appeal No. 404 of 2026, concerning a Sub-Inspector transferred on identical grounds, and applied the reasoning in that judgment to this appeal.

The present judgment does not set out any statute or independent legal test governing transfer decisions; it leaves the appellant free to approach the competent authority regarding his alleged difficulties.

The Court considered the appeal concluded by its decision in the connected appeal and saw no sufficient reason to take a different view.

Although the appellant raised his accident and resulting hardship as an additional ground, the Court did not treat it as a basis to set aside the transfer or relieving orders; instead, it left him to report his difficulties to the competent authority.

Any pending application was also disposed of.