Disposed

Vivek Arya v. the State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC4 Jan 2021CW/95/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In an S.B. Civil Writ Petition, the High Court directed the respondents to consider the petitioner's representation for posting him at his spouse's place of posting per State policy and pass an order within 10 days before disposing of the petition challenging his transfer.

What did the court decide?

Direction to respondents to consider petitioner's representation for posting at spouse's place and pass order within 10 days; writ petition disposed of.

Vivek Arya Vs the State of Rajasthan — Service and Employment | Rajasthan HC (2021)

¶1

(1 of 2)

¶2

[CW-95/2021]

¶3

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶4

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 95/2021

¶5

Vivek Arya S/o Shri Cuni Lal Arya, Aged About 45 Years, R/o 33, Raj Vilas Colony, Near Public Park, Bikaner (Raj.), At Present Working As Assistant Programmer (Non Tsp), Sub Registrar And Stamp Office, Bikaner Ii, Bikaner (Raj.).

¶6

----Petitioner

¶7

Versus

¶8

The State Of Rajasthan, Through Secretary, Department Of Information And Technology Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur.

¶9

The Technical Director, Department Of Information And Technology, Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur.

¶10

Sub Registrar, Bikaner-Ii, District Bikaner, Rajasthan. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Moti Singh (through VC) For Respondent(s) :

¶11

----Respondents

¶12

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN BHANSALI

¶13

Order

¶14

04/01/2021

¶15

This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner aggrieved against order dated 23.12.2020 (Annex.6), whereby, the petitioner has been transferred from Bikaner to Merta, Nagaur.

¶16

Various submissions have been made in the writ petition seeking to question the validity of the order dated 23.12.2020. However, learned counsel for the petitioner confines the petition to the fact that as the wife of the petitioner is working at Bikaner, as per the policy of the State, the petitioner should have been accommodated at Bikaner itself and, therefore, on that count the

¶17

(2 of 2)

¶18

[CW-95/2021]

¶19

order impugned passed by respondents deserves interference by this Court.

¶20

I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner and have perused the material available on record.

¶21

Annex.7 of the writ petition, wherein a certificate pertaining to Smt. Kavita Ahlawat – wife of the petitioner indicates that she is posted at Bikaner.

¶22

In view thereof, the petitioner may make representation to the respondents for considering the said aspect of keeping the petitioner posted at the place where his spouse is posted and it is expected of the respondents to decide the same in terms of the policy of the State.

¶23

If such representation is made by the petitioner the respondents are directed to pass appropriate order on the said representation within a period of 10 days from the date the representation is made by the petitioner.

¶24

With the above observations / directions the writ petition filed by the petitioner stands disposed of.

¶25

(ARUN BHANSALI),J

¶26

147-pradeep/-

Vivek Arya v. the State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vivek Arya v. the State of Rajasthan

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

Shankarlal Vs Sohanlal Kalusuwa

Smt. Radha Bai Gameti Vs Firoz Khan and Ors.

Dharma and Ors. Vs Narayan Lal and Anr.

Magan Lal Gadat Vs State of Rajasthan

Dr. Manmohan Gupta Vs State of Rajasthan and Ors.

Mahesh Kumar Vs State of Rajasthan