HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
D.B. Special Appeal Writ No.427/2021
1. Rajasthan Rajya Vidyut Utpadan Nigam Limited, Through Its
Chairman, Vidyut Bhawan, Janpath, Jyoti Nagar, Jaipur.
2. Rajasthan Rajya Vidyut Utpadan Nigam Limited, Through Its
Chief Personnel Officer, Vidyut Bhawan, Janpath, Jyoti Nagar,
Jaipur.
----Appellants
Versus
1. Bajrang Lal Saini S/o Shri Jhandu Ram Saini, Aged About 34
Years, R/o Village Post Chanwara, Tehsil Udaipurwati, District
Jhunjhunu (Raj.)
2. Sunil John S/o Shri C.v. John, Aged About 35 Years, R/o Rgtpp
Colony, Ramgarh, Jaisalmer (Raj.)
----Respondents
For Appellant(s) : Mr. Virendra Lodha, Sr.Adv. with Mr. Aditya Jain For Respondent(s) : Mr. Vikas Jakhar HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. AKIL KURESHI HON'BLE KUMARI JUSTICE REKHA BORANA Judgment 08/11/2021 This appeal is filed by the original respondents challenging the judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 02/02/2021 passed in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.2646/2020. The original petitioners were employed in the Rajasthan Rajya Vidyut Utpadan Nigam Limited (the appellants). It appears that since several employees of the Nigam were posted at remote places, to mitigate their difficulties, the Nigam formulated a scheme under a Memorandum dated 22/05/2018 under which by way of One Time Special Transfer Policy, those employees who give their choice, may be brought over to urban centers. The petitioners applied for benefit under the scheme. The transfer orders in their favour were also issued on 13/08/2019. However, these transfer orders were not implemented. Instead, the Nigam made an amendment in the scheme under a Memorandum dated 27/01/2020 by virtue of (Downloaded on 12/11/2021 at 09:18:39 PM) (2 of 3) [SAW-427/2021] which, it was provided that if there are more aspirants for transfer to the same posts than the number of posts available, the senior employees would be preferred for transferring them. By virtue of this amendment, the petitioners' transfer orders were re-issued upon which, they filed the above mentioned writ petition. The learned Single Judge set-aside the amendment in the scheme by virtue of O.M. dated 27/01/2020 and in consequence thereof, set- aside the fresh order of transfers in favour of several employees, which were based on the amended scheme. Before the learned Single Judge, the Nigam had specifically raised an issue that allowing the challenge of the petitioners, would adversely affect the beneficiaries of the fresh transfer orders. This contention was rejected on the ground that these changes took place pending litigation and, therefore, the principle of lis pendens will apply.
Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the documents on record, we are of the opinion that the petitioners and other employees of the Nigam had no vested right to be posted at any particular place, much less, at the place of their choice. If the employer had framed a benevolent scheme to mitigate the hardship of those employees who were since long posted at remote areas, employer had also all right to make necessary amendments in the scheme. As long as any such amendment does not offend the equality and reasonableness clause flowing from Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India, the court would not set-aside the same by substituting its own wisdom over that of the employer. The amendment in the scheme which was set-aside by the learned Single Judge, can also not be seen as retrospective in nature since none of the employees had vested right to be posted at a particular place. While implementing (Downloaded on 12/11/2021 at 09:18:39 PM) (3 of 3) [SAW-427/2021] the scheme, as stated by the learned counsel for the Nigam, it was realised that if the scheme is implemented without proper safeguards, it is possible that the seniors may continue to languish at remote places and the junior employees may get the benefit. The scheme was therefore amended with necessary clarification. We do not find that such action of the employer was in any manner arbitrary or unreasonable. Thus, quite apart from the fact that the entire fresh transfer list could not have been cancelled without hearing the beneficiaries who would be adversely affected by such decision, on the fundamental principle of the amendment issued by the employer not being contrary to law, the decision of the learned Single Judge is reversed.
The learned counsel for the petitioners however submitted that some of the petitioners had altered their position to their disadvantage relying on the transfer orders passed in their favour in the year 2019. He further submitted that even after accommodating the petitioners' seniors, there are still other urban centers where the petitioners can be accommodated. While disposing of the appeal, it is provided that the Nigam would examine all these aspects of the matter and consider whether the petitioners also can be accommodated at the urban centers as per the choice they have indicated in response to the transfer scheme. While doing so, the administrative exigency ofcourse will be a relevant consideration.
Subject to these observations, this appeal is allowed.
(REKHA BORANA),J (AKIL KURESHI),CJ
Anil Goyal-PS/BM Gandhi-PS-7
(Downloaded on 12/11/2021 at 09:18:39 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)