Rajasthan High Court
Deviram Son Of Shri Ramswrop vs Rajasthan State Road Transport ... on 20 October, 2022
Bench: Pankaj Mithal, Manindra Mohan Shrivastava
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
D.B. Civil Special Appeal Writ No. 925/2022
Deviram Son of Shri Ramswrop, Aged 57 Years, Working As
Driver In Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation Bharatpur
Depot, Resident Of Village And Post- Pingora, Tehsil-Nadbai,
District- Bharatpur (Raj.)
----Appellant
Versus
1. Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation, Through Its
Managing Director, Parivahan Marg, Jaipur (Raj.).
2. Executive Director (Administration), Rajasthan State Road
Transport Corporation, Jaipur (Raj.).
3. Zonal Manager, Rajasthan State Road Transport
Corporation, Bharatpur Zone Bharatpur (Raj.)
4. Zonal Manager, Rajasthan State Road Transport
Corporation, Kota Zone, Kota (Raj.).
5. Chief Manager, Rajasthan State Road Transport
Corporation, Bharatpur Depot, Bharatpur (Raj.).
----Respondents
For Appellant(s) : Mr. Vinod Goyal, Advocate with
Mr. Anil K. Sharma, Advocate
For Respondent(s) : Ms. Harshita Thakral, Advocate
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. PANKAJ MITHAL
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA
Judgment
20/10/2022
1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. The judgment and order dated 08.07.2022 passed by the
learned Single Judge dismissing the writ petition of the appellant
against oral order of his transfer from Bharatpur to Jhalawar is
under challenge.
(2 of 3) [SAW-925/2022]
3. The writ petition has been dismissed primarily on the basis of
the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, wherein, the Hon'ble
Supreme Court has held that the government servant has no
vested right to remain posted at a place of his choice, nor he can
insist that he must be posted at one place or the other. All
government employees are liable to be transferred in the
administrative exigencies from one place to other and that
transfer is an incident of service inherent in terms of the
appointment.
4. In view of the aforesaid observations, the Court held that all
courts should always be reluctant in interfering with the transfer of
the employee unless, such transfer is vitiated by violation of some
statutory provisions or suffers from mala fides.
5. In the case at hand, the appellant who is working as a driver
was allegedly transferred from Bharatpur to Jhalawar.
6. Learned counsel for the appellant argued that there is
actually no order of transfer and that it is only on oral instruction
that he has been directed to join at Jhalawar.
7. On the other hand, the respondents took a stand that though
there may not be any order in writing for transfer of the appellant,
nonetheless, in the duty chart he has been allocated District
Jhalawar for the purposes of discharging duties and he should
have joined there.
8. This Court in dealing with the appeal vide order dated
29.07.2022 has directed that the respondents shall not take any
coercive action against the appellant to compel him to join at
Jhalawar inasmuch as, there was no order of his transfer from
Bharatpur to Jhalawar. In view of the said order, it is not disputed
(3 of 3) [SAW-925/2022]
that the appellant is continuously working at Bharatpur depot
itself.
9. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, we are of
the opinion that though transfer is an exigency of service and no
one has any vested right to claim that he should be allowed
posting at a particular place, nonetheless, as there is no order of
transfer of the appellant, he cannot be compelled to join duties at
Jhalawar.
10. Accordingly, the impugned judgment and order dated
08.07.2022 is hereby set-aside and the appeal is allowed with the
direction that the respondents shall allow the appellant to continue
functioning at Bharatpur until and unless any fresh order of his
transfer in accordance with law is passed.
(MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA),J (PANKAJ MITHAL),CJ
Anil Goyal/Mohita /50
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
