Dismissed

Man Singh Jaga S/O Late Sh. Lal Singh v. Rajasthan Rajya Vidyut Prasaran Nigam Limited

Rajasthan HC27 Jul 2021CW/220/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This order dismisses a writ petition challenging a government transfer from Sultanpur to Baari. The Single Judge upheld the transfer based on administrative exigency and public law principles, declining to intervene in individual hardships or where no mala fides are established.

What did the court decide?

Discontinuance of the writ petition and dismissal of the petition filed by the petitioner.

Man Singh Jaga S/O Late Sh. Lal Singh Vs Rajasthan… — Service and Employment | Rajasthan HC (2021)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶2

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 220/2021

¶3

Man Singh Jaga S/o Late Sh. Lal Singh, Aged About 55 Years, Resident Of 120, Shubhash Nagar, Panchwati Colony, Kunhadi, Kota, Rajasthan (Employee I D No. 2108302, Presently Posted As Helper-Ist, At Aen 132 K V G S S, Sultanpura, Kota)

¶4

----Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

Rajasthan Rajya Vidyut Prasaran Nigam Limited, Through Its Chairman Cum Managing Director, Vidyut Bhawan, Janpath, Jyoti Nagar, Jaipur, Rajasthan.

¶7

Rajasthan Rajya Vidyut Prasaran Nigam Limited, Through Its Chief Personnel Officer, Department Of Personnel, Vidyut Bhawan, Janpath, Jaipur, Rajasthan.

¶8

----Respondents

¶9

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Vikas Kabra. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Umang Gupta.

¶10

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE INDERJEET SINGH

¶11

Order

¶12

27/07/2021

¶13

By this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the transfer order dated 31.12.2020, whereby the petitioner has been transferred from Sultanpur to Baari.

¶14

Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been transferred to a remote place which is 500kms away from the present place of posting. Counsel further submits that daughter of the petitioner is suffering from paralytic attack and his wife has recently passed away.

¶15

Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents submitted that due to administrative exigency, the petitioner has been

¶16

(2 of 3)

¶17

[CW-220/2021]

¶18

transferred and the person who is employee of the corporation 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 Union of India and Anr. Vs. Deepak Niranjan Pandit and Anr. reported in (2020) 3 Supreme Court Cases 404 in para Nos. 3 and 4 has held as

¶19

under:-

¶20

“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.

¶21

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 impugned order has been passed in breach of the settled principles and precedents which have consistently been enunciated

¶22

(3 of 3)

¶23

[CW-220/2021]

¶24

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”.

¶25

The writ petition filed by the petitioner deserves to be dismissed for the reasons; firstly, the petitioner has been transferred due to administrative exigency; secondly, the person 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.

¶26

Hence this writ petition is dismissed.

¶27

(INDERJEET SINGH),J

¶28

PREETI VALECHA /76

Man Singh Jaga S/O Late Sh. Lal Singh v. Rajasthan Rajya Vidyut Prasaran Nigam Limited

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Man Singh Jaga S/O Late Sh. Lal Singh v. Rajasthan Rajya Vidyut Prasaran Nigam Limited

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ranveer Singh Maan Vs State of Raj and Ors.

Director Elementary Education Andors Vs Hemraj Singh

Kalu Lal Meena S/O Shri Gangaram Meena Vs the State of Rajasthan

Harish Kumar Sharma S/O Sh. Radhey Shyam Sharma Vs Rajasthan Rajya Vidyut Prasaran Nigam Limited

Manvendra Singh S/O Shri Kedarnath Singh Vs State of Rajasthan

Vikram Singh Vs State of Raj and Ors.