Partly allowed

Shokat Ali v. State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC14 Nov 2019CW/16941/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition challenging a transfer order issued to a driver near retirement, the High Court granted a stay on the impugned order. It directed the respondents to dispose of the petitioner's representation via a speaking order within four weeks.

What did the court decide?

Stayed the effect and operation of the impugned transfer order dated 31.10.2019. Directed respondents to dispose of petitioner's representation by passing a speaking order within four weeks.

Shokat Ali Vs State of Rajasthan — Service and Employment | Rajasthan HC (2019)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶2

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 16941/2019

¶3

Shokat Ali S/o Shri Deen Mohammad, Aged About 59 Years, Resident Of Village Gram Kumharo Ka Bass, Gudamalani, District Barmer, Rajasthan At Present Working On The Post Of Driver At Barmer.

¶4

----Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary, Department Of Transport, Govt. Of Rajasthan, Jaipur.

¶7

Executive Director (Administration), Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation (Rsrtc), Jaipur.

¶8

Zonal Manager, Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation (Rsrtc), Jodhpur Zone Jodhpur.

¶9

Chief Manager, Barmer Depot, Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation (Rsrtc), Barmer.

¶10

----Respondents

¶11

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Hapu Ram For Respondent(s) :

¶12

HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA

¶13

Order

¶14

14/11/2019

¶15

Petitioner has filed this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging order dated 31.10.2019, whereby he has been transferred from Barmer Depot to Abu Road Depot.

¶16

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner is working as a driver and he had joined with the respondents on 01.05.1987. Petitioner is due to retire next year. Petitioner has been transferred on the pretext that he has been rendered surplus. Petitioner is working as senior most driver in the

¶17

(2 of 3)

¶18

[CW-16941/2019]

¶19

depot. Moreover, petitioner should not be disturbed from the place of his post on the verge of his retirement.

¶20

Learned counsel has placed relience on decision of Division Bench by this Court in the case of Pushpa Mehta Vs. Rajasthan Civil Services Appellate Tribunal & Ors. (D.B. Civil Special Appeal No.1430/1999) decided on 16.12.1999, wherein it was held as under:-

¶21

“That unless there are 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.”

¶22

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that at this stage petitioner would be satisfied in case respondents are directed to dispose of representation moved by the petitioner by passing a speaking order.

¶23

Keeping in view the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner, it is ordered that the petitioner shall file representation before respondents within one week from today and the same shall be disposed of by the respondents by passing a speaking order within a period of four weeks. In the meantime, effect and operation of impugned order dated 31.10.2019 qua the petitioner shall remain stayed till the representation of the

¶24

(3 of 3) [CW-16941/2019]

¶25

petitioner is decided by the respondents. The final order passed by the respondents shall prevail thereafter.

¶26

The petition stands disposed of accordingly.

¶27

(SABINA),J

¶28

60-Arvind/-

Shokat Ali v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shokat Ali v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Dashrath Kumar Saini Vs State of Rajasthan

Rajendra Singh Gurjar Vs State of Rajasthan

Kailashdan Vs Pariyojana Prabandakh, Rajwest Power Plant

Dala Ram Vs the State of Rajasthan

Ashwani Vs State of Rajasthan

Kamal Kumar Soni Vs State of Rajasthan