Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Mohan Lal Meena vs Jodhpur Vidhyut Vitaran Nigam Ltd. ... on 8 August, 2025
Author: Nupur Bhati
Bench: Nupur Bhati
[2025:RJ-JD:35332]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
AT JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 15035/2025
Mohan Lal Meena S/o Shri Laddu Lal Meena, aged about 41
years, R/o Regar Mohalla, Khatupura, Sawai Madhopur - 322001
(Rajasthan).
----Petitioner
Versus
1. Jodhpur Vidhyut Vitaran Nigam Ltd., New Power House
Road, Jodhpur (Rajasthan) Through its Managing Director.
2. Secretary (Administration), Jodhpur Discom, New Power
House Road, Jodhpur (Rajasthan).
3. Assistant Engineer (Vigilance) (DC), Jodhpur Discom, Old
Power House Road, Jodhpur (Rajasthan)
4. Assistant Engineer (O & M), Jodhpur Discom, Bap, District
Jodhpur (Raj.).
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Ravindra Singh on behalf of
Mr. M.S. Godara.
For Respondent(s) : Mr. D.S. Sodha.
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.
3. In Jasvinder Singh (supra), this Court observed and held
as under:
[2025:RJ-JD:35332] (2 of 3) [CW-15035/2025]
"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
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
[2025:RJ-JD:35332] (3 of 3) [CW-15035/2025]
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
48-DJ/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
