Single judge High Court dismissed a writ petition challenging a service transfer order, holding that the petitioner failed to implead alleged mala fide individuals and that an employee cannot claim a fixed workplace, refusing to exercise extraordinary jurisdiction.
null
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.
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 219/2021
Harish Kumar Sharma S/o Sh. Radhey Shyam Sharma, Aged About 44 Years, Resident Of Gali No. 3, Plot No. 4, Durga Nagar, Near Railway T A Camp, Kota Junction, Kota, Raj. (Employee I D No. 2108037, Presently Posted As Ssa-I At Aen 132 Kv Gss Keshoraipatan, Bundi)
----Petitioner
Versus
----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Vikas Kabra. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Umang Gupta.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE INDERJEET SINGH
Order
27/07/2021
By this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the transfer order dated 31.12.2020, whereby the petitioner has been transferred from Keshorai Patan (Bundi) to Bhadala (Jodhpur).
Counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner has been transferred to a remote place which is 500kms away from the present place of posting. Counsel further submits that the respondents have transferred him with malafide intention.
Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents submitted that due to administrative exigency, the petitioner has been transferred and the person who is employee of the corporation
(2 of 3)
[CW-219/2021]
cannot claim to work at a particular place of his choice. In support of the contentions counsel relied upon the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Uni
o
n of India and Anr. Vs. Deepak Niranjan Pandit and Anr. reported in (2020) 3 Supreme Court Cases 404 wherein para Nos. 3 and 4 it has been held as under:-
“3.The High Court, in interfering with the order of transfer, has relied on two circumstances. Firstly, the High Court has noted that as a result of the stay on the order of transfer, the headquarters of the respondent will remain at Mumbai and even if he is to be suspended, his headquarters will continue to remain at Mumbai. The second reason, which was weighed with the High Court, is that the spouse of the respondent suffers from a cardiac ailment and is obtaining medical treatment in Mumbai. In our view, neither of these reasons can furnish a valid justification for the High Court to take recourse to its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution in passing an order of injunction of this nature. Significantly, the High Court has not even found a prima facie case to the effect that the order of transfer was either mala fide or in breach of law. The High Court could not have dictated to the employer as to where the respondent should be posted during the period of suspension. Individual hardships are matters for the Union of India, as an employer, to take a dispassionate view. 4.However, we are categorically of the view that the impugned order of the High Court interfering with the order of transfer was in excess of jurisdiction and an improper exercise of judicial power. We are constrained to observe that the
(3 of 3)
[CW-219/2021]
impugned order has been passed in breach of the settled principles and precedents which have consistently been enunciated and followed by this Court. The manner in which judicial power has been exercised by the High Court to stall a lawful order of transfer is disquieting. We express our disapproval”.
The writ petition filed by the petitioner deserves to be dismissed for the reasons; firstly, although the petitioner has levelled the allegation of malafide intention but he failed to implead such person as party respondent in this writ petition; secondly, the petitioner who is employee of the corporation cannot claim to work at a particular place of his choice and lastly I am not inclined to exercise extra-ordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
Hence this writ petition is dismissed.
(INDERJEET SINGH),J
PREETI VALECHA /75
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the transfer of an employee raises a prima facie case of malafide justifying judicial intervention in special leave jurisdiction.
Whether an employee can claim a right to work at a particular place of their choice against administrative exigency.
Harish Kumar Sharma
Rajasthan Rajya Vidyut Prasaran Nigam Limited
INDERJEET SINGH
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
