Mohan Ram Nehra vs The Commissioner And Deputy ...
2025 Latest Caselaw 6493 Raj

Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur

Mohan Ram Nehra vs The Commissioner And Deputy ... on 4 February, 2025

[2025:RJ-JD:6828]

      HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
                       JODHPUR
                    S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3093/2025

Mohan Ram Nehra S/o Peetha Ram, Aged About 59 Years,
Resident Of Village Kasumbi Upadra, Tehsil Ladnun, At Present
Posted At Panchayat Samiti Ladnun, Dist. Deedwana-Kuchaman.
                                                                         ----Petitioner
                                       Versus
1.       The    Commissioner            And      Deputy        Secretary-Ii,     Rural
         Development             And       Panchayati           Raj      Department,
         Secretariat, Jaipur.
2.       The Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad, Nagaur.
3.       The Development Officer, Panchayat Samiti Ladnun, Dist.
         Deedwana-Kuchaman.
                                                                      ----Respondents


For Petitioner(s)            :     Mr. B.R. Chahar.
For Respondent(s)            :     Mr. Pawan Bharti for
                                   Mr. I.R. Choudhary, AAG



               HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN MONGA

Order (Oral)

04/02/2025

1. Petitioner herein, inter alia, seeks quashing of two orders i.e.

one dated 09.01.2025 (Annex.-4) vide which he has been

transferred from Panchayat Samiti Ladnu to Panchayat Samiti

Jawaja, Ajmer and an order dated 23.01.2025 (Annex.-5), vide

which he was relieved. He is 59 years old and he is at the fag end

of his service career, as his retirement is due on 31.10.2025.

2. Heard.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner, at the outset, relies on the

Division Bench judgment rendered in Dr. Pushpa Mehta Vs. State

[2025:RJ-JD:6828] (2 of 2) [CW-3093/2025]

[2000 (2) WLC 725] and contends, in my view rightly so, that the

impugned transfer order is contrary to the judgment ibid.

3. Whereas learned counsel for respondents argues that

transfer is an integral part of service conditions of a government

employee and the same arise out of the administrative exigencies.

Therefore, no indulgence is warranted by this Court.

4. Having heard the rival contentions and on perusal of the case

file, I am of the opinion that petitioner deserves indulgence in light

of his impending date of superannuation i.e. 31.10.2025.

5. As an upshot, the instant petition is allowed. Impugned

transfer order dated 09.01.2025 (Annex.-4) and relieving order

dated 23.01.2025 (Annex.-5) qua the petitioner are quashed.

Respondents are directed to either accommodate the petitioner on

the same post or an alternative post at the same place where he

was working, prior to passing of the impugned transfer order.

6. Pending application, if any, stands disposed of.

(ARUN MONGA),J 124-DhananjayS/Rmathur/-

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)