Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Parmanand vs State Of Rajasthan (2025:Rj-Jd:7991) on 10 February, 2025
[2025:RJ-JD:7991]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3588/2025
Parmanand S/o Sh. Shivdas, Aged About 59 Years, Resident Of
Ward No. 5 Shrivijay Nagar, 10 Blm-A, Vilochia Ganganagar,
Rajasthan
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Secretary, Animal Husbandry
Department, Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur.
2. Director, Animal Husbandry Department, Jaipur (Raj.)
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. B.S. Sandhu
Mr. S.K. Shrimali
Mr. Mayank Rajpurohit.
For Respondent(s) :
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN MONGA
Order (Oral)
10/02/2025
1. Petitioner herein, inter-alia, seeks quashing of an office order
dated 13.01.2025 (Annex.2), vide which he was transferred from
Ramsinghpur, Anoopgarh, Sriganganagar to Vadara, District Sirohi.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned
transfer order is arbitrary in nature. He contends that the
petitioner, being the sole breadwinner of his family, is responsible
for the care of his two children, who are both physically
handicapped and mentally impaired since birth, necessitating his
continuous attention and supervision. Furthermore, his slated date
of superannuation is 30.04.2026 i.e. about 14 months.
3. He argues that the issue raised in the present writ petition is
covered by a judgment rendered in Dr. (Smt.) Pushpa Mehta
Vs. Rajasthan Civil Services Appellate Tribunal & Ors.
Reported in 2000(2) WLC 725. He submits that the petitioner
[2025:RJ-JD:7991] (2 of 2) [CW-3588/2025]
is sanguine that, in case he is allowed to file a representation qua
the grievance raised in the present writ petition and the same is
considered in light of the aforesaid judgment, he will be meted out
with favorable treatment.
4. In view of the aforesaid, the competent authority shall look
into the mitigating circumstances particularly the factum of two
children of the petitioner being handicapped and also mentally
impaired coupled with the fact that petitioner is slated to
superannuate on 30.04.2026 i.e. about 14 months from now.
5. Prima facie, it so appears that petitioner ought not to have
been dislocated in light of Division Bench judgment rendered in
Pushpa Mehta ibid.
6. Be that as it may, the competent authority shall make an
endeavor to identify an alternative post for the petitioner either in
the same district or in the vicinity thereof within a period of 30
days and in case, the same is not possible, a speaking order be
passed by giving specific reasons thereof as to why the petitioner
cannot be given the benefit of judgment rendered in Pushpa
Mehta ibid. Till a decision is taken, effect and operation of the
impugned order dated 13.01.2025 (Annex.2) shall remain stayed.
7. Disposed of as above.
8. Pending application(s), if any, stand disposed of.
(ARUN MONGA),J
24-DhananjayS/Rmathur/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
