Transfer is an Incidence of Service and No Employee can Claim Vested Right to a Specific Post.

The petitioner was appointed as a Seechpal in 1997 and subsequently promoted to Seech Paryavekchak (2017) and Ziledar (2022).

Apart from a six-month stint in Bageshwar in 2022, the petitioner served continuously in Haldwani or adjoining areas since 1997.

On July 12, 2024, he was transferred from Irrigation Division, Haldwani to Lohaghat.

Following a previous writ petition (No. 1278 of 2024), the court directed the competent authority to decide on the petitioner's representation against the transfer.

The representation was rejected on April 18, 2026, on the grounds that the transfer complied with the Transfer Act, as the petitioner had spent the vast majority of his career in "Sugam" (accessible) areas.

The petitioner challenged this rejection, claiming his "Durgam" (remote) service was miscalculated and that certain other employees were illegally exempted from transfer.

1. Whether the petitioner’s transfer from Haldwani to Lohaghat was legally sustainable under the State’s Transfer Act given his long tenure in one station.

2. Whether the court should interfere with the transfer order based on allegations of improper exemptions granted to other employees under the guise of being Association office bearers.

The court applied the principle that transfer is an inherent "incidence of service," and no government servant holds a vested right to remain posted at a specific location indefinitely.

It relied on the provisions of the Transfer Act (Uttarakhand Annual Transfer for Public Servants Act), which mandates compulsory transfers between "Sugam" and "Durgam" areas based on tenure.

The court also adhered to the principle of judicial restraint in administrative matters of transfer, provided the transfer is made as per service conditions and without proven malice.

The court found that the petitioner had remained in Haldwani or nearby areas for nearly 29 years, with only a "brief period of 6 months" elsewhere in 2022.

Applying the Transfer Act, the court determined that the petitioner was liable for transfer to a different station.

The court dismissed the petitioner's argument regarding the distance and hardship of Lohaghat, noting it is a District Headquarter with urban facilities less than 100 km from Haldwani.

Regarding the petitioner's claim that others were wrongly exempted as "office bearers," the court declined to adjudicate the validity of those exemptions directly but recognized the need for administrative verification to ensure parity and adherence to Association bye-laws.

The writ petition was disposed of with a direction to Respondent No. 3 to examine the petitioner’s representation regarding the allegedly illegal exemptions of other employees.

If it is found that individuals were exempted based on non-existent offices under the Association’s bye-laws, the authority must take a decision within eight weeks, ensuring that the affected parties are given an opportunity of hearing.