Remanded

Vinod Kumar Bairwa S/O Shri Panna Ram v. Registrar, State Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission

Rajasthan HC12 Nov 2018WRW/219/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Review petition challenging transfer order due to misstatement of fact regarding vacant posts. Court recalled order directing transfer to Dausa and provided liberty to transfer to other locations at respondents' option.

What did the court decide?

Recall of order dated 08.08.2018 directing transfer to Dausa; liberty to transfer to Karauli, Nagour or Sirohi; petitioner to remain at Dausa pending further directions.

Vinod Kumar Bairwa S/O Shri Panna Ram Vs Registrar… — Service and Employment | Rajasthan HC (2018)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶2

D.B. Writ Review No. 219/2018

¶3

Vinod Kumar Bairwa S/o Shri Panna Ram, R/o 166-B, Shanti Nagar, Gurjar Ki Thadi, Jaipur.

¶4

----Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

Registrar, State Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission, Rajasthan, Jaipur.

¶7

----Respondent

¶8

Bharat Singh S/o late Shri Nathu Singh, age 48 years, R/o Gram Sabalpur, Tehsil & District Dausa (Rajasthan)

¶9

----Review Petitioner-Applicant

¶10

For Review : Dr.Saugath Roy Petitioner(s) For Respondent(s) : Dr.Abhinav Sharma, AAG Mr.Asgar Khan – for writ petitioner

¶11

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MUNISHWAR NATH BHANDARI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BANWARI LAL SHARMA

¶12

Judgment

¶13

12/11/2018

¶14

Heard learned counsel for the parties on the review petition.

¶15

Learned counsel for the review petitioner Mr.Bharat Singh submits that to challenge the order of transfer, a writ petition was filed. It was dismissed by learned Single Judge. The interference in the order of transfer and of learned Single Judge has been made by this Court finding that the writ petitioner Vinod Kumar Bairwa is working on the lowest post and has been transferred to far of place, i.e., Jaisalmer. Taking humanitarian ground, interference in the order of transfer was made. It was

¶16

(2 of 3) [WRW-219/2018]

¶17

stated that a post is lying vacant at Dausa, Sikar and Tonk, thus the official respondents were directed to transfer petitioner Vinod Kumar Bairwa to Dausa.

¶18

Pursuant to the directions of this Court, the petitioner Vinod Kumar Bairwa was transferred to Dausa in place of Jaisalmer, though, no post was lying vacant at Dausa. The review petition has been filed accordingly by the employee, affected by the order passed by this Court.

¶19

Learned counsel submits that the review petitioner was already posted at Dausa thus the post was not lying vacant. The order was obtained by making misstatement of fact.

¶20

Learned Additional Advocate General Dr.Abhinav Sharma submits that no post was lying vacant at Dausa, therefore, to implement the order of this Court, the review petitioner has to be unsettle. It is stated that now the posts are lying vacant at Nagour, Sirohi and Karauli where the petitioner Vinod Kumar Bairwa can be transferred in place of Jaisalmer. A liberty for it has been sought.

¶21

Learned counsel for the writ petitioner Mr.Vinod Kumar Bairwa submits that no misstatement of fact was made. The statement was given on information of the Officer Incharge. It is, however, submitted that if no post was lying vacant at Dausa then the writ petitioner may be transferred to Karauli.

¶22

We have considered rival submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and find that while challenging the order of transfer, so as the order passed in the writ petition, this Court was informed about vacant post at Dausa apart from two other places. In view of the above, a direction was given to post the petitioner Vinod Kumar Bairwa at Dausa. The post was not lying vacant at

¶23

(3 of 3)

¶24

[WRW-219/2018]

¶25

Dausa, thus the review petitioner was disturbed and this review petition has been filed for that reason.

¶26

Taking into consideration that no post was lying vacant at Dausa, the order dated 08^th August, 2018 is recalled with liberty to the official respondents to post the petitioner Vinod Kumar Bairwa to other place. It may be Karauli, Nagour or Sirohi. The review petitioner would accordingly be continued at Dausa.

¶27

Learned counsel for the petitioner Vinod Kumar Bairwa has given preference to his posting at Karauli.

¶28

In view of the above, the official respondents are directed to take sympathetic view, keeping in mind desire of the petitioner Vinod Kumar Bairwa.

¶29

With the aforesaid, the review petition is disposed of.

¶30

(BANWARI LAL SHARMA),J

¶31

(M.N. BHANDARI),J

¶32

Preeti/11

Vinod Kumar Bairwa S/O Shri Panna Ram v. Registrar, State Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vinod Kumar Bairwa S/O Shri Panna Ram v. Registrar, State Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Narendra Kumar Mathur Andors Vs High Court of Judicature Andanr

Ashok Kumar Vs State of Rajasthan through Pp

Kalu Lal S/O Heera Lal B/C Lodha Vs State of Rajasthan through Pp

Heere Khan and Ors. Vs State of Rajasthan through Pp

State of Rajasthan Vs Vijay Basfod

Yakoob and Anr. Vs State of Rajasthan through Pp