Hon’ble Sudhanshu Dhulia, J. (Oral)

1. The petitioner is a “Mandi Sahayak” in the Mandi Samit, Bagwara Rudrapur, District Udham Singh Nagar. He is aggrieved by his transfer order dated 30.11.2015 passed by respondent No. 3 – Managing Director (Administration), Uttarakhand Krishi Utpadan Viparan Board Mandi Bhawan, Rudrapur, Udham Singh Nagar by which he has been transferred from Mandi Samiti Rudrapur to Mandi Samiti Luxar, District Haridwar.

2. The transfer order has been challenged on various grounds, however, the principal grounds for challenge are that firstly the petitioner is a Class-IV employee, who cannot be transferred outside Mandi Samiti Rudrapur, and secondly, even in a given contingency a Mandi Sahayak can only be transferred from one Mandi Samiti to another but within the same “region”. According to the petitioner, the Mandi Parishad, which governs the various agricultural and marketing societies, is divided into two regions i.e. is Garhwal Region and another is Kumaon Region. Since Mandi Samiti Rudrapur falls under the Kumaon Region, he may be transferred in any Mandi Samiti, which falls within the Kumaon Region. He relies upon Regulation 24(2) of the Uttar Pradesh Agricultural Produce Market Committees (Centralized) Service Regulation, 1984 (from hereinafter referred to as ‘Regulation’), which have been framed by the erstwhile State of Uttar Pradesh and also applicable in the State of Uttarakhand as well. The Regulations have been framed by the State of Uttar Pradesh, the powers have been given to it under Section 25-A and 26-X of the Uttar Pradesh Krishi Utpadan Mandi Adhiniyam, 1964, after the approval of the State Government. It is undisputed that these rules are applicable in the State of Uttarakhand as well. Regulation 24(2) of the Regulation reads as under:-

“24(2) The Director or the Additional Director or the Regional Deputy Director (Administration) may in special circumstances transfer any Mandi Sahayak (Kamdar) from one Market Committee to another Market Committee, within the region or any member of the service holding Group ‘D’ post other than Mandi Sahayak (Kamdar) from one Market Committee to another Market Committee within the district.”

3. The petitioner further relies upon Regulation 4(5) of the Regulation, in which various centralized services have been given, which is as follows:-

“4. Creation of Centralised Service - With effect from the commencement of these regulations there shall be a centralized services for the Market Committees consisting of the cadres and posts given below:

1. …..

2. …..

3. …..

4. …..

5. Forth Class Staff-

(a) Mandi Sahayak (Kamdar)

(b) Peon

(c) Chaukidar

(d) Mandi Abhirakshak

(e) Security Guard”

4. The petitioner would further argue that the Class-IV employee has clearly been defined under Regulation 4 of the Regulation, which also included Mandi Sahayak (Kamdar). In reply to the contention of the petitioner, the counsel for the Mandi Parishad has argued that earlier Mandi Sahayak was a Class-IV post, but in the year 2014 there has been a restructuring of the post and now the post of Mandi Sahayak has become the Class-III post with a pay scale of ‘5200-20200 (with grade pay of ‘1900).

5. The respondents rely upon two Government Orders dated 07.05.2012 and 28.02.2014. The above two Government orders have been perused. The post of Mandi Sahayak has now become a Class-III post and on this aspect there is no doubt. As far as the contention of the petitioner that he may be transferred within the same Region is concerned, the learned Senior Advocate – Mr. Avtar Singh Rawat, who appears for the Mandi Parishad relies upon the Government order dated 27.12.2000 passed by Commissioner, Forest & Village Development, Dehradun which says that now there is only one Region in Uttarakhand (although earlier there were two Regions).The two regions have been merged into one Region. ‘Region’ has been defined under Regulation 3(k) of the Regulation, whic