Rajasthan High Court
Rajasthan Rajya Vidyut Utpadan ... vs Bajrang Lal Saini S/O Shri Jhandu ... on 8 November, 2021
Bench: Akil Kureshi, Rekha Borana
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
(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
(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
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
