Raju Ram Vishnoi vs Jodhpur Vidyut Vitran Nigam ...
2022 Latest Caselaw 11432 Raj

Citation : 2022 Latest Caselaw 11432 Raj
Judgement Date : 14 September, 2022

Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur

Raju Ram Vishnoi vs Jodhpur Vidyut Vitran Nigam ... on 14 September, 2022

Bench: Arun Bhansali

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 12515/2022

Raju Ram Vishnoi, Aged About 28 Years, By Caste Vishnoi, Resident Of Machhro Ki Dhani, Kerala Nada, Bhikamkor, Tehsil Osiyan, District Jodhpur (Rajasthan).

----Petitioner Versus

1. Jodhpur Vidyut Vitran Nigam Limited, New Power House Road, Jodhpur (Rajasthan). Through Its Managing Director.

2. The Secretary (Administration), Jodhpur Vidyut Vitran Nigam Limited, New Power House Road, Jodhpur (Rajasthan).

3. The Superintending Engineer (District Circle), Jodhpur Vidyut Vitran Nigam Limited, Jodhpur (Rajasthan).

4. The Assistant Engineer (Vigilance), Jodhpur Vidyut Vitran Nigam Limited, Phalodi, District Jodhpur (Rajasthan).

----Respondents Connected with S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 13046/2022

Rakesh Kumar S/o Shri Tarachand, Aged About 39 Years, Village Bharinda, Tehsil Rajgarh, Churu.

----Petitioner Versus

1. Jodhpur Vidyut Vitran Nigam Limited, New Power House Jodhpur Through Its Managing Director.

2. Secretary (Admin), Jodhpur Vidyut Vitran Nigam Limited, New Power House Jodhpur.

3. Superintending Engineer (District Circle), Jodhpur Vidyut Vitran Nigam Limited, Churu.

4. Assistant Engineer (Rural), Jodhpur Vidyut Vitran Nigam Limited, Sadulpur (Churu).

----Respondents

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. C.S. Kotwani.

Mr. Vikas Bijarnia.

(2 of 3)

For Respondent(s) : Mr. Anil Upadhyay.

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN BHANSALI

Order

14/09/2022

These writ petitions have been filed by the petitioners

aggrieved against the orders dated 10.08.2022 and 12.08.2022

(in SBCW No. 12515/2022) and 24.08.2022 (in SBCW

No.13046/2022), whereby the petitioners have been transferred.

Submissions have been made that the petitioners have been

transferred, without indicating that the transfer was in Nigam

interest/for administrative reason and, therefore, in terms of the

Travelling Allowance Rules, 1962 ('the Rules), the said action of

the respondents would entail that the petitioners would not be

entitled to TA/DA and that it will be treated that they themselves

sought the transfer and consequence would be that their seniority

would be affected.

Further submissions have been made that the issue raised in

the present matters is squarely covered by order in Vijay Vishnoi

v. JVVNL & Ors.: SBCW NO. 7268/2015, decided on 26.08.2015,

wherein on identical ground, the order of transfer has been

quashed.

Learned counsel for the respondents attempted to make

submissions that looking to the nature of transfer, the petitioners

cannot have any grievance and that the non-indication of the

aspect of administrative reason/interest of the Board, is merely an

omission, which cannot be vitiate the orders impugned.

(3 of 3)

I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel

for the parties and have perused the material available on record.

A coordinate Bench of this Court in Vijay Vishnoi (supra),

after considering the above aspect and noticing the contention on

part of the respondents and judgment in Champa Lal Parihar v.

State of Raj. & Ors.: 2006(1) WLC (Raj.) 212, ordered as under:-

"As a result of the aforesaid discussion, the instant writ petition deserves to be and is hereby allowed. The impugned transfer order Annex.P/2 dated 30.06.2015 is quashed qua the petitioner. However, the respondents shall be liberty at liberty to pass a fresh order complaint to the Rules, if so required.