Ranjeet Singh vs Jodhpur Vidhyut Vitran Nigam Ltd
2022 Latest Caselaw 11560 Raj

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 13403/2022

Ranjeet Singh S/o Shri Kulveer Singh, Aged About 30 Years, Resident Of Chak-20 Ssw, Via Ramsara Narayan, Vpo Kishanpura Dinkhada, Tehsil And District Hanumangarh.

----Petitioner Versus

1. Jodhpur Vidhyut Vitran Nigam Ltd, Through Its Managing Director, New Power House, Jodhpur.

2. The Secretary (Admin), Jodhpur Vidhyut Vitran Nigam Ltd., New Power House, Jodhpur.

3. The Assistant Engineer (O And M), Hanumangarh Town, District Hanumangarh.

                                                                ----Respondents


For Petitioner(s)        :     Mr. R.C. Joshi.
For Respondent(s)        :     Mr. Anil Upadhyay.


        HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN BHANSALI
                       Order
16/09/2022

This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner aggrieved

against the orders dated 10.08.2022 (Annex.-2) and 23.08.2022

(Annex.-3), whereby the petitioner has been transferred.

Submissions have been made that the petitioner has 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 petitioner would not be

entitled to TA/DA and that it will be treated that he himself sought

the transfer and consequence would be that his 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,

(2 of 2) [CW-13403/2022]

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 petitioner

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.

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.

Stay petition also stands disposed of. No order as to costs."

The issue raised in the present writ petition is squarely

covered by order in the case of Vijay Vishnoi (supra).

Consequently, the writ petition filed by the petitioner is

allowed. The impugned transfer orders dated 10.08.2022 (Annex.-

2) and 23.08.2022 (Annex.-3) qua the petitioner, are quashed

and set aside. The respondents shall be at liberty to pass a fresh

transfer order complying the Rules, if so required.

(ARUN BHANSALI),J 137-PKS/-

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)