Partly allowed

Lalchand Soni v. State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC2 Aug 2022CW/4666/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition challenging a transfer order. The High Court made an interim stay absolute, directing that the impugned transfer order shall not be given effect to, while preserving the respondents' right to pass a fresh order in accordance with law.

What did the court decide?

The interim stay order dated 12.06.2020 is made absolute. The impugned transfer order shall not be given effect to.

Lalchand Soni Vs State of Rajasthan — Service and Employment | Rajasthan HC (2022)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶2

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4666/2020

¶3

Lalchand Soni S/o Laxminarayan Soni, Aged About 54 Years, R/o D-15, Near Radha Krishan Temple, Samta Nagar, Main Road, Bikaner (Raj.). (Presently Working As Junior Accountant Office Of Treasury And Accounts, Bikaner.

¶4

----Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

State Of Rajasthan, through The Secretary, Department Of Finance, Jaipur, Rajasthan.

¶7

The Director, Treasury and Accounts, Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur.

¶8

Treasury Officer, Department Of Treasury and Accounts, Bikaner.

¶9

----Respondents

¶10

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Aidan Choudhary for Mr. Muktesh Maheshwari For Respondent(s) : Ms. Pratyushi Mehta for Mr. Sandeep Shah, AAG

¶11

HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE REKHA BORANA

¶12

Order

¶13

02/08/2022

¶14

The present writ petition has been filed against the order dated 21.05.2020 whereby the petitioner was transferred from Bikaner to Ajmer.

¶15

It has been stated by learned counsel for the petitioner that the said transfer order was passed on the premise that proceedings by Anti Corruption Bureau (ACB) had been undertaken against the petitioner and a letter dated 10.10.2019 had been issued by the ACB to the concerned department. It has been submitted that the proceedings taken up by the ACB have

¶16

(2 of 2)

¶17

[CW-4666/2020]

¶18

been stayed by this Court in appropriate proceedings taken up by the petitioner.

¶19

Vide interim order dated 12.06.2020, the effect and operation of the impugned order dated 21.05.2020 was stayed.

¶20

A perusal of the impugned order dated 21.05.2020 makes it clear that the same has been issued in administrative exigency. Any administrative exigency, even if, was there at the relevant time must have come to an end by now. Therefore, the interim order dated 12.06.2020 is made absolute and it is hereby ordered that impugned transfer order will not be given effect to.

¶21

The respondents shall however be free to pass fresh order and transfer the petitioner, in accordance with law, obviously, if administrative exigency so warrants.

¶22

With these directions/observations, the writ petition as well as stay petition stand disposed of.

¶23

All other pending applications stand disposed of.

¶24

(REKHA BORANA),J

¶25

22-Dharmendra/-

Lalchand Soni v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Lalchand Soni 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sharad Mathur Vs State of Rajasthan

Sandeep Saharan Vs State of Rajasthan

Manju Lata Vs the State of Rajasthan

Bhagirath Prasad and Ors. Vs State of Rajasthan and Ors.

Surendra Mathur Vs State and Ors.

Hari Singh Vs State of Rajasthan