Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Pradeep Kumar Yadav vs Jodhpur Vidyut Vitran Nigam Limited ... on 8 August, 2025
Author: Nupur Bhati
Bench: Nupur Bhati
[2025:RJ-JD:35293]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 15248/2025
Pradeep Kumar Yadav S/o Karni Singh Yadav, Aged About 41
Years, R/o Karni Coach, Udairamsar, District Bikaner, Rajasthan
At Present Working As Technician Ii Posted At Office Of
Establishment Officer, Bz, Bikaner.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. Jodhpur Vidyut Vitran Nigam Limited (Jdvvnl), Through
Managing Director, New Power House, Industrial Area,
Jodhpur, Email - [email protected]
2. The Secretary (Admn.), Jodhpur Vidyut Vitran Nigam
Limited, Jodhpur, Email -
[email protected]
3. Zonal Chief Engineer (O And M), Jodhpur Vidyut Vitran
Nigam Limited, (Bikaner Zone) Bikaner. Email
[email protected]
4. Chief Operating Officer, Bikaner Electricity Supply Limited,
2Nd Floor, 3-K-9, Pawan Puri, Bikaner, Rajasthan, Email-
[email protected].
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Anil Choudhary for Mr. CS Kotwani
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Manvendra Singh
HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE NUPUR BHATI
Order
08/08/2025
1. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the issue is
covered by judgment of this Court in Jasvinder Singh vs.
Jodhpur Vidhyut Vitran Nigam Ltd. & Ors.; S.B. Civil Writ
Petition No.13533/2025 (decided on 22.07.2025).
2. Learned counsel for the respondents is not in a position to
refute the above submission.
[2025:RJ-JD:35293] (2 of 3) [CW-15248/2025]
3. In Jasvinder Singh (supra), this Court observed and held
as under:
"12. So far as the reasons assigned by the Authority while
passing office order dated 01/02.07.2025 are concerned,
evidently and admittedly, none of the said reasons was the
basis to pass transfer order dated 09.05.2025. The sole
reason to transfer the petitioners vide order dated
09.05.2025 was the exigency existing around the border
areas at that point of time i.e. an apprehended situation of
war. It is only because of the said reason that at the first
stage, the Court was not inclined to interfere with the said
order and specifically observed that the petitioners were
under an obligation to comply with order dated 09.05.2025.
But then while disposing of the petitions, the Court
specifically directed the respondent Authorities to reconsider
the order, keeping into consideration the fact that a cease
fire has been declared and also that the employees of other
departments had been reverted back after the situation
been normalised. Furthermore, even the ratio laid down in
Sharwan Kumar's case (supra) was directed to be kept
into consideration.
13. A bare perusal of office order dated 01/02.07.2025
reflects that none of the directions as issued by the Court
has been taken care of by the concerned Authority while
passing the said order. An exigency in apprehension of a
war and an exigency because of deficiency of infrastructure
or public utility services, cannot be concluded and
considered to be one and the same.
14. Further, the reason for passing order dated
09.05.2025 was never the deficiencies in the infrastructure
and public utility services. Had the Department intended to
transfer the petitioners for the said reason or for some
administrative exigency, the same ought to have been
reflected in the said order. Order dated 09.05.2025 does
not even whisper about any such administrative exigency.
The exigencies as sought to be reflected in order dated
01/02.07.2025 are clearly an after thought and does
amount to supplementing of the grounds in order dated
09.05.2025, which cannot be permitted.
15. As held by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Gordhandas
Bhanji (supra), the public orders, publicly made, in
exercise of a statutory authority cannot be construed in the
light of explanations subsequently given by the
officer/authority so as to assign as to what he meant or
[2025:RJ-JD:35293] (3 of 3) [CW-15248/2025]
what was in his mind or what he intended to do while
passing the said order.
16. The explanation that all the employees working on
unsanctioned posts had been only transferred vide order
dated 09.05.2025, is clearly a reasoning supplemented at
the stage of decision of the representations and that too,
after the specific directions been issued by the Court to
reconsider order impugned dated 09.05.2025.
17. Further, no such stand was taken by the respondents
in their reply to the earlier writ petitions and was not even a
ground raised at that stage. The reasons as assigned in
office order dated 01/02.07.2025 are clearly not the
reasons for which order impugned dated 09.05.2025 was
passed.
18. In view of the above analysis and observations, office
order dated 01/02.07.2025 is hereby quashed and set
aside. The writ petitions are hence, allowed."
4. In view of the above, the present writ petition is allowed on
the same terms and directions as passed in Jasvinder Singh
(supra). The respondents shall be under an obligation to permit
the petitioner to join at the place of posting where he was working
before passing of order dated 09.05.2025.
5. However, the respondents shall be at liberty to pass
appropriate order afresh, in accordance with law, if so desired.
6. Stay petition and pending applications, if any, stand disposed
of.
(DR.NUPUR BHATI),J
surabhii/217-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
