Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Om Prakash vs The State Of Rajasthan ... on 17 January, 2025
[2025:RJ-JD:3211]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1201/2025
Om Prakash S/o Syobaka Ram, Aged About 59 Years, R/o Ward
No. 13, Dadrewa, Tehsil Rajgarh, Distt. Churu, Rajasthan.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through The Principal Secretary,
Rural Development And Panchayati Raj Department,
Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur.
2. The Additional Commissioner Cum Joint Secretary
(Administration-I), Panchayati Raj Department,
Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur.
3. The Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad Churu.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Ms. Varsha Bissa
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Pawan Bharti
Ms. Aashi Chouhan for
Mr. I.R. Choudhary, AAG
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN MONGA
Order (Oral)
17/01/2025
1. Petitioner herein seeks quashing of an order dated
09.01.2025 (Annex.-5) vide which he was transferred from
Rajgarh to Bidasar which is around 200 kms from his present
place of posting.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner
is scheduled to retire in less than seven months. The impugned
transfer order is violative of ratio rendered in Dr. Smt. Pushpa
Mehta Vs. Rajasthan Civil Services Appellate Tribunal & Ors.,
reported in 2000 (1) RLW (Raj.) 233.
3. Having seen the case pleaded by the petitioner, which is duly
supported with the affidavit, it is clearly borne out that the
impugned transfer order of the petitioner is not only in violation of
the applicable transfer policy of the State, which envisages that a
[2025:RJ-JD:3211] (2 of 2) [CW-1201/2025]
Government officer, who has less than two years of service left,
ordinarily, should not be transferred.
4. Even otherwise, the said position has been amply clarified by
a Division Bench judgment of this Court rendered in Pushpa Mehta
ibid, relevant of which is reproduced as under:-
"(4). In the instant case, the second respondent is due to retire in
January 2001 and the appellant has long to go in service. The
Tribunal was of the view that policy of the Government has been that
ordinarily, an employee at the verge of retirement, should not be
disturbed. It appears that the State Government was also satisfied
with the reasoning given by the Tribunal and, therefore, it did not
prefer to challenge the said order. It is only the appellant, who is
interested in posting at Udaipur, has preferred to challenge the order
of the Tribunal. It may be noticed that in the opinion of the Tribunal,
the order of transfer was malafide for the reason that it has been
passed in order to only accommodate the appellant. This finding gets
confirmation from the fact that the State Government has chosen not
to challenge the order of the Tribunal. Thus, there appears to be no
administrative reasons to transfer Dr. (Mrs.) Pushpa Mehta to
Udaipur and to disturb Dr. (Mrs.) Shanta Dubey, compelling
reasons, ordinarily, an employee should not be disturbed from the
place of his/her posting, when he/she is at the verge of retirement. An
employee should be given sufficient time, which may be of two years
or so to plan peacefully his/her post retirement life. This can be the
legitimate expectation of an employee who has served the
Department for major part of his/her life. In exceptional case, if the
transfer in such case is felt necessary in the public interest, it must be
kept in mind while giving the fresh posting that minimum
inconvenience is caused to the concerned employee. Any transfer
contrary to aforesaid principle will lead to interference that the
order is malafide. We find no good reason to interfere with the order
of the learned Single Judge."
(5). Consequently, the appeal is rejected in limine.
5. In view of the aforesaid, I see no reason why the petitioner
be not given the benefit thereof.
6. Accordingly, the instant petition is allowed. The impugned
order dated 09.01.2025 (Annex.5) is set-aside qua the petitioner.
7. Pending application, if any, stands disposed of.
(ARUN MONGA),J
149-DhananjayS/Rmathur/-
Whether fit for reporting: Yes / No
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
