Rajasthan High Court
Gajendra Singh Parihar Son Of H.S. ... vs The Union Of India on 5 January, 2021
Bench: Sabina, Chandra Kumar Songara
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 36/2021
Gajendra Singh Parihar Son Of H.S. Parihar, Aged About 57
Years, Resident Of A-190, Mahesh Nagar, Jaipur, Presently Posted
As Income Tax Officer, Ward No. 6(3), Jaipur Group (B)
----Petitioner
Versus
1. The Union Of India, Through Its Secretary, Ministry Of
Finance, Department Of Revenue, Cdbt North Block,
Delhi-110001.
2. The Principal Chief Commissioner, Income Tax, Jaipur,
Rajasthan, New Central Revenue Building, Bhagwandas
Road, Jaipur- Rajasthan 302005.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Sandeep Sharma Advocate
through Video Conferencing.
HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDRA KUMAR SONGARA
Judgment / Order
05/01/2021
Petitioner has filed the petition under Article 227 of the
Constitution of India challenging the order dated 24.12.2020
passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, whereby, original
application moved by the petitioner challenging his transfer order
dated 07.10.2020, was dismissed.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the
petitioner is due to retire within three years. As per policy framed
by the respondents relating to transfers, petitioner was liable to be
accommodated on one of the choice station submitted by him.
Transfer order has been passed in violation of the transfer policy.
(2 of 3) [CW-36/2021]
Parents of the petitioner are old and are suffering from various
ailments.
Petitioner is posted as Income Tax Officer, Group 'B' Post. It
is the case of the petitioner that he was required to be transferred
to a place of his choice in terms of the Annual General Transfer
Policy.
Para/Clause 3 of the policy Annexure-R/1 reads as under:-
"3. Application for Transfer/Stay:-
3.1 All the officers shall be required to submit Application
for Transfer/Stay in prescribed format before the AGT.
3.2 The officer shall be required to give his/her three
"Choice stations" in order of his preference. The first choice
shall be the preferred place of posting. In case an officer
has chosen Category 'D' or 'E' station as one of his/her
choice then the other two choices shall be from the
Category 'A', 'B' or 'C' stations.
3.3 If an officer fails to submit his application for
Transfer/Stay in prescribed format before the due date, it
shall be presumed that the officer is having open choice for
all the stations.
3.4 It shall be the endeavour of the Local Placement
Committee to accommodate the officer at his first choice
station.
3.5 If an officer cannot be accommodated at his first choice
station, then it shall be the endeavour of the Local
Placement Committee to accommodate him/her at one of
his two choice stations subject to availability of the
vacancies and administrative convenience. In case, it is not
feasible to accommodate him/her at his choice stations due
to non-availability of vacancies, he/she shall be
accommodated to a nearer station to his/her choice
stations.
(3 of 3) [CW-36/2021]
A perusal of the above para/clause reveals that every
endeavour is to be made for placement of the officer at his place
of choice station.
Vide the impugned order dated 07.10.2020, petitioner has
been transferred from Jaipur to Jodhpur.
It was the case of the respondents in their reply before the
Tribunal that the petitioner was due for transfer as he had
completed his normal tenure of four years and nine months as on
31.03.2020. Petitioner had been transferred from Jaipur to
Jodhpur as per the transfer policy and taking into consideration
the vacancy position and acute shortage of officers at Jodhpur and
on account of administrative requirement.
Thus, as per the respondents, the transfer of the petitioner
had been effected from Jaipur to Jodhpur on administrative
ground and after he had completed his normal tenure at Jaipur.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has failed to point out
anything from record to establish that the transfer of the
petitioner had been effected by the respondents on account of
mala-fide reasons. Since the petitioner had been transferred on
administrative grounds, learned Tribunal rightly dismissed the
original application filed by the petitioner challenging his transfer
order.
No ground for interference is made out.
Dismissed.
(CHANDRA KUMAR SONGARA),J (SABINA),J
Sanjay Kumawat-74
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
