High Court dismissed writ petition challenging order of Rajasthan Civil Services Appellate Tribunal dismissing appeal against transfer. Tribunal relied on coordinate bench judgments distinguishing Pushpa Mehta precedent, finding no universal application for transfers near retirement and no evidence of malafides.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR
: O R D E R :
S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.12231/2015
Dr. Suresh Chandra Shrimali
vs.
State of Raj. & Ors. Date of Order :: 16th October, 2015 PRESENT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN BHANSALI
Mr. Salil Trivedi, for the petitioner.
BY THE COURT:
This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner aggrieved against order dated 14.10.2015 passed by Rajasthan Civil Services Appellate Tribunal, Jodhpur ('Tribunal'), whereby, the appeal filed by the petitioner against the order dated 13.06.2015, whereby, petitioner was transferred from Jodhpur to Nagaur, was dismissed.
It is, inter alia, claimed in the writ petition that the petitioner was transferred from office of Joint Director, Animal Husbandry, Pali to Jodhpur by order dated 06.10.2014 and petitioner resumed the charge on 10.10.2014 and by order dated 13.06.2015 the petitioner was transferred as Dy. Director, Livestock Development, Nagaur; the petitioner filed S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6457/2015, which was disposed of by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court on 29.06.2015 giving liberty to the petitioner to approach the Tribunal and operation of the order was stayed for three months qua the petitioner so as to enable the petitioner to take recourse to appropriate legal remedy; whereafter, petitioner filed an appeal before the Tribunal and after hearing the appeal, the order was reserved on 29.09.2015 and was pronounced on 14.10.2015 and the appeal has been dismissed.
2
It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is due to retire on 30.06.2016 and his transfer at this stage would create social and personal problems for him and relying on the judgment of this Court in the case of Dr. ( Smt.) Pushpa Mehta v. Rajasthan Civil Services Appellate Tribunal & Ors. : 2000 (2) WLC (Raj.) 725 it was submitted that the orders of transfer and that of the Tribunal deserve to be quashed and set aside.
It is further submitted that there is apparently no reason for transfer of the petitioner, however, the Tribunal has not dealt with the issues raised by the petitioner appropriately; learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that this Court in similar circumstances have granted indulgence where the petitioners were nearing retirement.
I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner and have perused the material placed on record.
The Tribunal while deciding the appeal filed by the petitioner, relied on orders passed by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Bhagwan Sahay Maheshwari v. RSRTC & Anr. Decided on 28.10.2013, Bhagwandas Mittal v. State of Rajasthan & Ors. : 2007 (2) ILR (Raj.) 502 and Mansingh v. State of Rajasthan & Ors. : D.B. Civil Special Appeal (W) No. 586/2013 decided on 02.07.2014 and distinguished the case of Dr. Pushpa Mehta (supra), wherein, it was observed that the observations made in case of Dr. Pushpa Mehta (supra) cannot be held laying down a law of universal application. The Tribunal also came to the conclusion that the petitioner has remained posted at Jodhpur for over 24 years of his service and as the petition lacks allegations regarding any mala fides on the part of the authorities, there was no reason to interfere with the order of transfer.
3
Having considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner and the reasons recorded by the Tribunal for dismissing the appeal filed by the petitioner, no case is made out for interference in the order passed by the Tribunal exercising powers under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India as the Tribunal has given adequate reasons for non-interference in the order of transfer and was justified in coming to the conclusion that judgment/observations made in the case of Dr. Pushpa Mehta (supra) do not lay down principle of universal application in case of transfer of employees, who are nearing retirement.
So far as the grant of interim orders by this Court in allegedly similar circumstances is concerned, the interim orders do not constitute precedent and once the Tribunal has applied its mind to the facts of the case and has come to the conclusion that no interference was called for in the order of transfer, the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner, based on interim orders, also have no substance.
In view of above discussion, there is no substance in the writ petition and the same is, therefore, dismissed.
A.K.Chouhan/-
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court should interfere with the order of the Civil Services Appellate Tribunal dismissing the appeal against the petitioner's transfer.
Whether the observations in Dr. Pushpa Mehta regarding transfers near retirement lay down a principle of universal application.
Whether interim orders granted by this Court in similar circumstances constitute binding precedence.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Dr. (Smt.) Pushpa Mehta v. Rajasthan Civil Services Appellate Tribunal & Ors.Distinguished¶13
Dr. (Smt.) Pushpa Mehta v. Rajasthan Civil Services Appellate Tribunal & Ors. : 2000 (2) WLC (Raj.) 725
Bhagwan Sahay Maheshwari v. RSRTC & Anr.Relied on¶16
Bhagwan Sahay Maheshwari v. RSRTC & Anr. Decided on 28.10.2013
Bhagwandas Mittal v. State of Rajasthan & Ors.Relied on¶16
Bhagwandas Mittal v. State of Rajasthan & Ors. : 2007 (2) ILR (Raj.) 502 · Who else cites this
Mansingh v. State of Rajasthan & Ors.Relied on¶16
Mansingh v. State of Rajasthan & Ors. : D.B. Civil Special Appeal (W) No. 586/2013 decided on 02.07.2014
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Dr. Suresh Chandra Shrimali
State of Rajasthan
Arun Bhansali
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
