Ram Dayal Seval vs State Of Rajasthan
2022 Latest Caselaw 11657 Raj

Citation : 2022 Latest Caselaw 11657 Raj
Judgement Date : 19 September, 2022

Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur

Ram Dayal Seval vs State Of Rajasthan on 19 September, 2022

Bench: Arun Bhansali

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN

AT JODHPUR

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 12758/2022

Ram Dayal Seval S/o Shri Mohan Lal, aged 31 Years, Resident of Village Alsar Bass, Via Rajaldesar, Tehsil Ratangarh, Churu and presently working on the post of Technical Helper-II at the Office of AEN (Rural), Rajaldesar, District Churu.

----Petitioner Versus

1. The State of Rajasthan through the Secretary, Energy Department, Government of Rajasthan, Jaipur

2. The Managing Director, Jodhpur Vidyut Vitran Nigam Limited, Jodhpur.

3. The Secretary (Administration), Jodhpur Vidyut Vitran Nigam Limited (Discom), Jodhpur.

4. Deputy Director, Personnel (Headquarter), Jodhpur Vidyut Vitran Nigam Limited (Discom), Jodhpur.

5. The Superintendent Engineer (O & M), Jodhpur Vidyut Vitran Nigam Limited, Churu.

                                                                ----Respondents


For Petitioner(s)        :     Mr. A.R. Godara.
For Respondent(s)        :     Mr. Anil Upadhyay.



           HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN BHANSALI

                                    Order

19/09/2022

These writ petition has been filed by the petitioner aggrieved

against the order 12.08.2022 (Annex.2), 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

(2 of 3) [CW-12758/2022]

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 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 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."

(3 of 3) [CW-12758/2022]

The issue raised in the present writ petitions 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 order dated 10.08.2022 is

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

a fresh transfer order complying the Rules, if so required.