Rajasthan High Court

Ghanshyam S/O Sh. Narayan Lal vs Rajasthan Rajya Vidyut Prasaran ... on 24 November, 2022

Bench: Mahendar Kumar Goyal

      HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
                  BENCH AT JAIPUR

              S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 16842/2022

Ghanshyam S/o Sh. Narayan Lal, Aged About 53 Years, Resident
Of Nigam Quarter, 132 Kv Gss, Alpha Nagar Road, Aktasa,
Talera, Bundi, Rajasthan (Employee I D No. 2108350, Presently
Posted As Ssa-II, At Aen 132 Kv Gss, Talera, Bundi, Rajasthan)
                                                                   ----Petitioner
                                   Versus
1.     Rajasthan Rajya Vidyut Prasaran Nigam Limited, Through
       Its Chairman Cum Managing Director, Vidyut Bhawan,
       Janpath, Jyoti Nagar, Jaipur, Rajasthan.
2.     Rajasthan Rajya Vidyut Prasaran Nigam Limited, Through
       Its Chief Personnel Officer, Department Of Personnel,
       Vidyut Bhawan, Janpath, Jaipur, Rajasthan.
3.     Jugraj Singh, Presently Posted As Th-II At Aen-1 (T And
       C) Rajasthan Rajya Vidyut Prasaran Nigam Limited,
       Bhilwara.
                                                                ----Respondents

Connected With S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 16852/2022 Dhool Singh S/o Late Sh. Babu Lal, Aged About 45 Years, Resident Of Nigam Quarter, 132 Kv Gss, Kota Road, Baran, Rajasthan (Employee Id No. 2108557, Presently Posted As Electrician-II, At Aen 132 Kv Gss, Baran, Rajasthan)

----Petitioner Versus

1. Rajasthan Rajya Vidyut Prasaran Nigam Limited, Through Its Chairman Cum Managing Director, Vidyut Bhawan, Janpath, Jyoti Nagar, Jaipur, Rajasthan.

2. Rajasthan Rajya Vidyut Prasaran Nigam Limited, Through Its Chief Personnel Officer, Department Of Personnel, Vidyut Bhawan, Janpath, Jaipur, Rajasthan.

3. Vishnu Prasad Malav, Presently Posted As Ssa-II, At Aen (Cluster) Rajasthan Rajya Vidyut Prasaran Nigam Limited, Danta, Bhilwara.

----Respondents

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Vikas Kabra For Respondent(s) : Mr. Rahul Lodha

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MAHENDAR KUMAR GOYAL

Order

24/11/2022

(2 of 8) [CW-16842/2022]

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 16842/2022:-

This writ petition has been filed assailing the legality and

validity of the order dated 04.11.2022 whereby, the petitioner, a

Sub-Station Assistant-II, has been transferred from Talera Bundi

to Bhilwara.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that his transfer is

in violation of the transfer policy dated 29.12.2004 inasmuch as

without petitioner's request for transfer, the respondent No.3 has

been transferred in his place on his request. He submits that the

petitioner is a low paid employee and should have been adjusted

either in the home district or at the nearest place. He, therefore,

prays that the order impugned dated 04.11.2022 be quashed and

set aside.

Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents No.1 &

2/Caveator submitted that the petitioner was posted at earlier

place of posting for 11 years and has been transferred in

corporation interest. He submits that the distance of the

transferred place is only 159 kms from the present place of

posting and no interference is warranted. He, therefore, prays for

dismissal of the writ petition.

Heard. Considered.

It is trite law that transfer is an exigency of service and no

employee can claim vested right of remain posted at a particular

place and the transfer order should not be interfered with unless it

is actuated out of malice or is in violation of the statutory rules.

Indisputably, it has not been case of the petitioner that there is

violation of any statutory provision or the order suffers from

malice. The petitioner has been transferred from the present place

(3 of 8) [CW-16842/2022]

after 11 years and this Court finds no reason to interfere with the

same.

The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Union of India

and Anr. Vs. Deepak Niranjan Pandit and Anr.: (2020) 3

Supreme Court Cases 404 in para Nos. 3 and 4 of the judgment

has held as under:-

"3.The High Court, in interfering with the order of transfer, has relied on two circumstances. Firstly, the High Court has noted that as a result of the stay on the order of transfer, the headquarters of the respondent will remain at Mumbai and even if he is to be suspended, his headquarters will continue to remain at Mumbai. The second reason, which was weighed with the High Court, is that the spouse of the respondent suffers from a cardiac ailment and is obtaining medical treatment in Mumbai. In our view, neither of these reasons can furnish a valid justification for the High Court to take recourse to its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution in passing an order of injunction of this nature. Significantly, the High Court has not even found a prima facie case to the effect that the order of transfer was either mala fide or in breach of law. The High Court could not have dictated to the employer as to where the respondent should be posted during the period of suspension. Individual hardships are matters for the Union of India, as an employer, to take a dispassionate view.

4.However, we are categorically of the view that the impugned order of the High Court interfering with the order of transfer was in excess of jurisdiction and an improper exercise of judicial power. We are constrained to observe that the impugned order has been passed in breach of the settled principles and precedents which have consistently been enunciated and followed by this Court. The manner in which judicial power has been exercised by the High Court to stall a lawful order of transfer is disquieting. We express our disapproval".

(4 of 8) [CW-16842/2022]

The Hon'ble Supreme Court has, in the matter of 'Rajendra

Singh & Ors. Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. reported in

(2009) 15 Supreme Court Cases 178, held as under:-

"8. A Government Servant has no vested right to remain posted at a place of his choice nor can he insist that he must be posted at one place or the other. He is liable to be transferred in the administrative exigencies from one place to the other. Transfer of an employee is not only an incident inherent in the terms of appointment but also implicit as an essential condition of service in the absence of any specific indication to the contrary. No Government can function if the Government Servant insists that once appointed or posted in a particular place or position, he should continue in such place or position as long as he desires (see State of U.P. v. Gobardhan Lal; SCC P.406 para 7).

9. The courts are always reluctant in interfering with the transfer of an employee unless such transfer is vitiated by violation of some statutory provisions or suffers from mala fides. In Shilpi Bose v. State of Bihar & Ors.1, this Court held : (SCC p.661, para 4) "4. In our opinion, the courts should not interfere with a transfer order which is made in public interest and for administrative reasons unless the transfer orders are made in violation of any mandatory statutory rule or on the ground of mala fide. A government servant holding a transferable post has no vested right to remain posted at one place or the other, he is liable to be transferred from one place to the other.

Transfer orders issued by the competent authority do not violate any of his legal rights. Even if a transfer order is passed in violation of executive instructions or orders, the courts ordinarily should not interfere with the order instead affected party should approach the higher authorities in the department. If the courts continue to interfere with day-to- day transfer orders issued by the government and its subordinate authorities, there will be complete chaos in the administration which would not be conducive to public interest. The High Court overlooked these aspects in interfering with the transfer orders."

(5 of 8) [CW-16842/2022]

10. In N.K. Singh v. Union of India, this Court reiterated that : (SCC p. 103; para 6) "6. ... the scope of judicial review in matters of transfer of a Government Servant to an equivalent post without adverse consequence on the service or career prospects is very limited being confined only to the grounds of mala fides or violation of any specific provision...."

Contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that his

transfer is in violation of the transfer policy dated 29.12.2004

cannot be countenanced for the reason that the policy is not

binding upon the Court as also for the reason that the Court is not

satisfied that the transfer of the petitioner is in violation of the

policy.

Accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed being devoid of

merit.

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 16852/2022:-