WPSS/1143/2025 of RAHUL KUMAR RAVI Vs STATE OF UTTARAKHAND

IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE ALOK KUMAR VERMA

08[th] JULY, 2025

WRIT PETITON NO. 1143 OF 2025 (S/S)

..... Petitioner

Rahul Kumar Ravi

Versus

State of Uttarakhand and Another ..…Respondents Counsel for the Petitioner : Mr. Suryakant Maithani, Advocate. Counsel for the Respondents : Mr. Bhupendra Singh Koranga, Brief Holder.

Hon’ble Alok Kumar Verma,J.

The present Writ Petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India with the following prayers:-

“(i) Issue writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to consider the representation dated 12.06.2025 (Annexure No.3) regarding the transfer of the petitioner from PWD Ukhimath, District Rudraprayag to any accessible area, preferably from the options furnished by the petitioner on 22.04.2025 (Annexure No.1).

(ii) Issue any other or further writ, order or direction which this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.

(iii) To award the cost of the petition in favor of the petitioner.”

Heard Mr. Suryakant Maithani, learned

counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Bhupendra Singh Koranga, learned Brief Holder for the respondents.

2025:UHC:5851

3. Mr. Suryakant Maithani, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that the petitioner was appointed and joined as Junior Engineer Construction Division, PWD, Ukhimath on 11.09.2013. He has been serving since then in Ukhimath. Ukhimath falls under remote category. list dated 22.04.2025 was prepared, wherein the petitioner was placed at serial no.1 because the petitioner had served the longest duration in remote area. transfer list dated 10.06.2025 was issued. The petitioner was not transferred. However, Mr. Deepak Juyal, Ms. Laxmi Kant Sharma, Ms. Sonika Bartwal and Ms. Harita Gusain, who were placed at serial nos.2, 7, 9 and serial no.11 in the list dated 22.04.2025, are transferred to the accessible area. Therefore, the petitioner submitted representation dated 12.06.2025. The said representation is still pending.

4. Mr. Suryakant Maithani, learned counsel for the petitioner, has requested to decide the present writ petition directing the respondent no.2 to decide the said representation dated 12.06.2025 (Annexure No.3 to the Writ Petition) as expeditiously as possible.

5. Mr. Bhupendra Singh Koranga, learned counsel for the respondents has sought two weeks’

2025:UHC:5851

time for respondent no.2 to decide the petitioner’s representation dated 12.06.2025 (Annexure No.3 to the Writ Petition).

6. On the request of learned counsel for both the parties, the present writ petition is disposed of directing the respondent no.2 to decide the petitioner’s representation dated 12.06.2025 (Annexure No.3 to the Writ Petition) by speaking and reasoned order, as expeditiously as possible, but not later than two weeks’ from the date of production of the certified copy of this order. The respondent no.2 is further directed to communicate the petitioner about his decision.

7.It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case.

Date: 08.07.2025 Pant/

___________________

ALOK KUMAR VERMA, J.