Prakash Chand Verma vs Rajasthan Rajya Vidhyut Prasaran ...
2022 Latest Caselaw 13839 Raj

Citation : 2022 Latest Caselaw 13839 Raj
Judgement Date : 25 November, 2022

Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur

Prakash Chand Verma vs Rajasthan Rajya Vidhyut Prasaran ... on 25 November, 2022

Bench: Arun Bhansali

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 16774/2022

Prakash Chand Verma S/o Shri Taru Ram, Aged About 53 Years, Ward No. 28, Vasant Vihar Colony, F-24, Raj Vilas, Suratgarh, District Sri Ganganagar (Raj.).

----Petitioner Versus

1. Rajasthan Rajya Vidhyut Prasaran Nigam Ltd., Through Its Chairman, Vidhyut Bhawan, Janpath, Jyoti Nagar, Jaipur (Raj.).

2. The Joint Director, Personnel (Hrd), Rajasthan Rajya Vidhyut Prasaran Nigam Ltd. Vidhyut Bhawan, Janpath, Jyoti Nagar, Jaipur (Raj.).

3. The Executive Engineer, 220 Kvgss, Rrvpnl, Rawatsar District Hanumangarh (Raj.).

4. Jagseer Singh Sidhu, Engineering Supervisor, Xen (220 Kv Gss), Sri Dungargarh, Bikaner. Now Under Transfer Xen, 220 Kvgss, Rrvpnl, Rawatsar District Hanumangarh (Raj.).

                                                                ----Respondents


For Petitioner(s)         :    Mr. J.S. Bhaleria.
For Respondent(s)         :    Mr. Suniel Purohit.



           HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN BHANSALI

                                    Order

25/11/2022

This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner aggrieved

against the order dated 04.11.2022 (Annex.P/3), whereby, the

petitioner has been transferred from Rawatsar to Shri Dungargarh

and in its last column, it has been mentioned 'Own Request',

challenge was laid to the order passed on the ground that the

petitioner has not made any such request and, therefore, passing

(2 of 4) [CW-16774/2022]

of the order by the respondents by indicating that petitioner has

made request, was bad in law.

On notices being issued, a reply to the petition has been filed

inter-alia pointing out that the indication made 'Own Request' was

on account of some typographical error and that subsequently,

orders have been passed, rectifying the said error and making the

petitioner entitled to TA & DA.

Another aspect was emphasized by the counsel for the

petitioner that the Competent Authority to transfer the petitioner

is the Managing Director of the Nigam, however, the order

impugned has been passed by the Joint Director Personnel (HRD),

who has no jurisdiction on the said aspect.

Submission was made on behalf of the respondents that the

order has been passed by indicating 'By Order' and, therefore, the

order essentially has been passed by the competent authority and

the order impugned dated 04.11.2022 is putting the said order in

execution and, therefore, the said issue has no substance.

Under the directions of the Court, counsel for the

respondents has produced note-sheet, whereby, the decision

pertaining to the transfer was taken, wherein, the proposal of

transfer of Engineering Supervisor and Technical Workmen was

mooted by Senior Assistant, who submitted the same for the

perusal and approval of the Authorities, which was endorsed by PE

(T.E.), JDP (HRD), CPO, Secretary (Administration), PO TE, SS

and, thereafter, as there was further proposal of transfers, the

said authorities have again signed the same, which has been

thereafter approved by the CMD of the Nigam and based on

which, a fair typed order was produced for approval and after

approval, the order has been issued on 04.11.2022.

(3 of 4) [CW-16774/2022]

Learned counsel for the petitioner insisted that the indication

made 'By Order', does not make the order having been passed by

the Managing Director and, therefore, the order is bad in law.

I have considered the submissions made by counsel for the

parties and have perused the material available on record.

Insofar as the fact about indication of transfer at petitioners

'Own Request', which aspect having been amended by the

respondents and its effect is concerned, the issue stands

concluded by order in Pankaj Kumar Meena Vs. State of Rajasthan

& Ors.:SBCWP No.12250/2022, decided on 26.08.2022 at Jaipur

Bench, wherein, a Coordinate Bench of this Court inter-alia came

to the following conclusion:-

"This writ petition filed by the petitioner deserves to be dismissed; for the reasons, firstly, the petitioner who is an employee of the corporation cannot claim to serve at a particular place of posting as per his choice, secondly, the respondents have issued a corrigendum dated 22.08.2022, wherein the transfer of the petitioner has been shown in the 'Nigam Interest', thirdly, the respondents have transferred as many as 149 engineers in the interest of corporation, lastly, in view of the judgments passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matters of Union of India & Rajendra Singh (both supra), no case is made out to exercise the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.