[Cites 3, Cited by 0]
Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Sohan Singh vs The State Of Rajasthan ... on 19 March, 2026
[2026:RJ-JD:13574]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1006/2026
Sohan Singh S/o Shri Jagveer Singh, Aged About 33 Years, R/o
Village Post Samraiya, Tehsil Vair, District Bharatpur (Raj.).
----Petitioner
Versus
1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary,
Department Of Rural Development And Panchayati Raj,
Secretariat, Rajasthan, Jaipur.
2. The Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad Pali, Pali.
3. The Vikas Adhikari, Panchayat Samiti Sojat, District Pali.
4. The Vikas Adhikari, Panchayat Samiti Sevar, District
Bharatpur.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Jitendra Singh Bhaleria.
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Kuldeep Vaishnav.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEET PUROHIT
Order
19/03/2026
1. The present writ petition has been filed challenging the order
dated 15.01.2025 (Annexure P/1), whereby the petitioner, who is
serving as a Gram Vikas Adhikari at Panchayat Samiti, Sojat (Pali)
has been ordered to join/discharge duties at Panchayat Samiti,
Sewar (Bharatpur) on work arrangement basis.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner, while elucidating the
factual matrix, submitted that pursuant to the said order dated
15.01.2025, the petitioner has been directed to discharge duties
in District Bharatpur, though his salary and allowances are to be
drawn from his original place of posting, i.e., Sojat (Pali), which is
around 520 kilometers away from his actual place of posting.
(Uploaded on 24/03/2026 at 12:39:32 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:13574] (2 of 6) [CW-1006/2026]
2.1 He further submitted that such an arrangement renders the
situation highly onerous for the petitioner, as he is required to
approach the Panchayat Samiti, Sojat (Pali), for every
administrative issue while being presently posted at Panchayat
Samiti, Sewar (Bharatpur). It was additionally contended that the
petitioner had submitted a representation dated 10.11.2025
(Annexure P/2) to the respondents; however, the same remains
pending consideration and no action has been taken thereon to
date.
2.2 Learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on
decisions by this Hon'ble High Court in Surjeet Singh v State of
Rajasthan & Ors; S.B. Civil Writ petition No. 7602/2025 and
Dr. Sukumar Kashyap v State of Rajasthan & Ors; S.B. Civil
Writ petition No. 7916/2021.
3. Au contraire, learned counsel for the respondent stated that
impugned order dated 15.01.2025 (Annexure P/1) was passed in
pursuance of administrative exigency at Panchayat Samiti, Sewar
(Bharatapur) and in the larger interest of administration. Thus, the
same does not warrant any interference from this Court.
4. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the
material available on record.
5. This Court has consistently held that posting of an employee
at a different station under the guise of a "working arrangement"
is impermissible in law. Such practices and orders have been
consistently deprecated by this Court. This Hon'ble High Court in
Dr. Sukumar Kashyap (supra) held that posting on working
arrangement basis can only be done for a limited period to meet
(Uploaded on 24/03/2026 at 12:39:32 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:13574] (3 of 6) [CW-1006/2026]
out sudden exigency. The relevant paragraphs are reproduced
herein below:
"(20) In the opinion of this Court, the concept of officiating
appointment and additional charge is entirely different than
posting on working arrangement basis. Officiating
appointment or additional charge is given to an officer
working at particular post so as to enable him to discharge
the duties and responsibilities also of the post, which is lying
vacant. Additional charge or officiating assignment is given
generally in the same district; whereas posting on
working arrangement basis, though not known to law,
can be sparingly made to meet out sudden emergent
situation/exigency or additional work.
(21) Posting on working arrangement basis can be
resorted to as an exceptional case, that too, for a very
limited period.
(22) The same cannot continue till indefinite time. This
Court fails to countenance State's action of deploying Senior
Doctors, who are presently working as CM&HOs on working
arrangement basis for months together."
5.1 The above-mentioned decision was relied upon by this
Hon'ble High Court in Rupender Singh v State of Rajasthan &
Ors.; S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 7617/2025 as well as in
Surjeet Singh (supra). In Surjeet Singh (supra), this Hon'ble
High Court held that posting on work arrangement basis can only
be resorted to in exceptional cases. The relevant paragraph is
reproduced herein below:
"8. Further, evidently the order impugned reflects the same
to be passed for work arrangement basis and as observed in
Dr. Sukumar Kashyap(supra), posting on work
arrangement basis, though not known to law, can be
sparingly made to meet out sudden emergent
situation/exigency or additional work. The Court
therein further held that the posting on work
arrangement basis can be resorted to only as an
(Uploaded on 24/03/2026 at 12:39:32 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:13574] (4 of 6) [CW-1006/2026]
exceptional case and that too, for a very limited
period. Herein, the order impugned does not reflect that the
same has been passed because of any sudden emergent
situation/exigency or any additional work. The order
impugned on that count too, deserves interference."
5.2 Therefore, in considered view of this Court, the device of a
"working arrangement" is often resorted to by the authorities as a
convenient means to bypass the settled procedure governing
transfers; however, such a practice has no foundation in the
statutory framework or recognized principles of service
jurisprudence. A transfer, being an incidence of service, must be
effected strictly in accordance with the applicable rules, policies,
and administrative guidelines. Any deviation therefrom, under the
nomenclature of a "working arrangement," cannot be
countenanced by this Court. The respondents cannot be permitted
to appoint an employee to a sanctioned post at one place, thereby
fixing his substantive posting, and yet compel him to discharge
duties at an altogether different station for a prolonged period,
without demonstrating sudden exigency.
5.3 A "working arrangement," if at all permissible, can only be
justified in rare and exceptional circumstances, such as to meet an
emergent or temporary exigency of service for a very short
duration. It cannot be allowed to assume the character of a
regular or long-term posting, nor can it be used as a substitute for
a formal transfer. Permitting such a course would open the door to
arbitrary and unguided exercise of power by authorities.
5.4 Moreover, such arrangements create administrative
inconsistency and uncertainty, as the employee remains
(Uploaded on 24/03/2026 at 12:39:32 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:13574] (5 of 6) [CW-1006/2026]
substantively attached to one place while being functionally
required to serve at another, leading to practical difficulties in
matters relating to supervision, accountability, salary
disbursement, service benefits, grant of leave etc.
5.5 In the present case, while the petitioner's substantive
posting continues at Sojat, he has been directed to perform his
duties at Bharatpur, which effectively amounts to a transfer in
disguise, without adherence to the prescribed procedure governing
transfers. This duality in posting is unreasonable and reflects a
clear abuse of administrative authority. If such practices are
allowed to continue, it would result in unbridled discretion being
exercised by the authorities, to the detriment of employees. In the
instant case, transfer of petitioner on a work arrangement basis,
at a distance of approximately 520 kilometers, and that too for a
prolonged duration of nearly one year, cannot be sustained in the
eyes of law. Such an arrangement appears to be unreasonable,
particularly in view of the practical difficulties it imposes upon
petitioner in discharging his official duties and coordinating with
his parent office.
5.6 Moreover, respondents have failed to demonstrate the
existence of any emergent circumstance or exigency of service
necessitating the placement of the petitioner at Bharatpur while
retaining his substantive posting at Sojat. No material has been
brought on record to indicate any emergent/additional work of a
temporary or limited nature warranting such an arrangement. In
the absence of any cogent justification, the impugned action
appears to be unreasonable.
(Uploaded on 24/03/2026 at 12:39:32 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:13574] (6 of 6) [CW-1006/2026]
6. The impugned order, to that extent, reflects an improper
exercise of administrative discretion and, therefore, warrants
interference by this Court. Therefore, the present writ petition is
allowed. The impugned order dated 15.01.2025 (Annexure-P/1)
is quashed and set aside to the extent of petitioner. Respondents
are directed to post the petitioner at his original place of posting
forthwith.
7. Stay application and other pending applications, if any, stand
disposed of.
(SANJEET PUROHIT),J
335-sumer - vallabhi/-
(Uploaded on 24/03/2026 at 12:39:32 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
