The High Court of Rajasthan dismissed the special appeal and stayed petition against the Single Judge's order refusing to interfere with the transfer of the appellant from one PHED unit to another. The court held the transfer of the post along with the employee was permissible under the Rules.
The stay petition and the special appeal were dismissed.
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
D.B.CIVIL SPECIAL APPEAL NO.188/2015 (Mahaveer Prasad vs. State of Rajasthan)
DATE OF ORDER: 01.04.2015
HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.SUNIL AMBWANI HON'BLE MS JUSTICE JAISHREE THAKUR
Mr.Hemant Choudhary, for the appellant.
We have heard learned counsel for the appellantpetitioner.
This Special Appeal has been preferred against the order of the learned Single Judge dated 19.01.2015 by which she has not interfered with the order of transfer of the appellant-petitioner as Assistant in the P.H.E.D. from Jal Yojna Galkheda Bhadra to Division Sikar vide order dated 22.12.2014.
Learned Single Judge observed that the Department has not adopted pick and choose method in the transfer. Rule 7 of the Work charged Employees Service Rules deals with “Seniority list” and it is apparent from Rule 7 that an employee can be transferred from one Unit to another and in case of transfer, his seniority in the parent Unit will be taken into consideration.
Rule 7 of the Work Charged Employees Service Rules, 1964 is quoted below:
“7. Seniority List.- Seniority lists of each category shall be maintained in each unit for purpose of promotion as well as retrenchment. When an employee is transferred from one Unit to another in the interest of Government
2
work his continuity of service in the parent unit shall be taken into account, in the matter of promotion or retrenchment as the case may be.”
It is apparent from the above rule of seniority, applicable to the work charged employees that they can be transferred from one Unit to another in the interest of the Government work. In the present case, in the note appended to the transfer order, it is clearly mentioned that 59 persons belonging to the Technical Cadre have been transferred in the interest of the Government work. The post held by them as work charged employee on which they have been granted semi permanent status, are singular posts, which have been transferred alongwith the employee and consequently, the posts held by them are directed to be treated as vacant posts.
Learned counsel for the appellant has changed the grounds of challenge taken in the writ petition and submits that the appellant-petitioner is still working as work charged employee in the Water Works Department and, thus, he will not fall within the definition of the `Employee' under rule 2(c) of the Work charged Employees Service Rules, 1964, as he is not a regular technical staff of the Water Works Department. It is further submitted that the appellant-petitioner, being a low paid employee, will suffer grave hardship on his transfer.
The appellant-petitioner was granted semi permanent status under the Work charged Service Rules vide order dated 20.4.1992. He has been transferred in the interest of the Government work alongwith his post, which is permissible under
3
the Rules.
So far as the appellant's hardship is concerned, the learned Single Judge has allowed the appellant-petitioner to make a representation for sympathetic consideration.
There is no merit in the Special Appeal. It is accordingly dismissed. The stay petition is also dismissed.
(JAISHREE THAKUR), J. (SUNIL AMBWANI), C.J.
RANKAWAT JK, PS
3 issues framed by the court
Whether transfer of a work charged employee along with his post in the interest of Government work is permissible under the Rules.
Whether the appellant has been disadvantaged vis-a-vis his rights as a work charged employee having semi-permanent status.
Whether the order of transfer was passed violating Rule 7 of the Work Charged Employees Service Rules, 1964.
2 provisions across 1 enactments
Mahaveer Prasad
State of Rajasthan
Sunil Ambвани
Jaishree Thakur
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
