Dismissed

Yogendra Singh S/O Late Narayan Singh v. Jaipur Vidyut Vitran Nigam Ltd.

Rajasthan HC2 Feb 2023SAW/55/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed an appeal challenging a transfer order. The court held that transfer policies are guidelines and deviations for administrative exigency do not vitiate the order, especially when the employee has completed their normal posting term.

What did the court decide?

Transfer order dated 13.01.2023 affirmed; appeal dismissed for lack of merit.

Yogendra Singh S/O Late Narayan Singh Vs Jaipur… — Service and Employment | Rajasthan HC (2023)

¶1

[2023/RJJP/001290]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶3

D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 55/2023

¶4

Yogendra Singh S/o Late Narayan Singh, Aged About 32 Years, R/o Village And Post Dahra, Tehsil Nadbai, District Bharatpur (Raj.)

¶5

----Appellant

¶6

Versus

¶7

Jaipur Vidyut Vitran Nigam Ltd., (Department Of Personnel) Through Its Chief Personnel Officer, Vidyut Bhawan, Janpath, Jaipur-302005

¶8

Superintending Engineer (Jp.dc), Jaipur Vidyut Vitran Nigam Limited (Jaipur District Circle), Jaipur (Rajasthan)

¶9

Assistant Engineer (O And M), Jaipur Vidyut Vitran Nigam Limited, Jaipur Discom, Nadbai, District Bharatpur (Rajasthan)

¶10

----Respondents

¶11

For Appellant(s)	: Mr.	Vikas Jakhar on behalf of
	Mr.	SanjayBuri
For Respondent(s)	:

¶12

HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. PANKAJ MITHAL HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SHUBHA MEHTA

¶13

Order

¶14

02/02/2023

¶15

The writ petition filed by the petitioner-appellant challenging his transfer order dated 13.01.2023 whereby he has been transferred from the office of AEN (O&M), Nadbai to the office of AEN (O&M), Bari, Dholpur has been dismissed.

¶16

The submission of learned counsel for the petitionerappellant is that he has been transferred several times and that the aforesaid transfer order is in violation of the transfer policy

(2 of 2)

[2023/RJJP/001290]

[SAW-55/2023]

inasmuch as ordinarily transfers are to be made in the months between April to May.

¶21

A perusal of the averments made in the writ petition and the facts as contained in the impugned order reveals that the petitioner is posted at Nadbai since 2019. The normal term of posting as per the policy is two years. The petitioner has completed his term of posting at Nadbai as he had been working there since 2019. The intermittent transfer orders were cancelled on his request and are of significance.

¶22

The policy in the ordinary course provides for transfer in the months of April and May but even if, any transfer is made on account of administrative exigency earlier, it would not be violative of any statutory provision. The transfer policy only acts as a guideline and any deviation from the same would not affect the merit of the transfer.

¶23

In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, we are of the opinion that the Writ Court has not erred in dismissing the writ petition and in the event the Writ Court has declined to exercise the discretionary jurisdiction, it cannot be said that it had committed an error.

¶24

The appeal lacks merit and is dismissed.

¶25

(SHUBHA MEHTA),J

¶26

(PANKAJ MITHAL),CJ

¶27

N.K. GANDHI/LAKSHYA SHARMA /5

Yogendra Singh S/O Late Narayan Singh v. Jaipur Vidyut Vitran Nigam Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Yogendra Singh S/O Late Narayan Singh v. Jaipur Vidyut Vitran Nigam Ltd.

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

Bachchu Singh S/O. Shri Latoori Vs the State of Rajasthan

Commissioner, Navodaya Vidyalaya Samiti Vs Rishiraj Meena Son of Late Shri Amol Singh Meena

Commissioner, Navodaya Vidyalaya Samiti Vs Damodar Singh Gunawat S/O Late Shri Amol Singh Meena

B.A. International Vs Union of India

Ashish Bohra S/O Shri Lumba Ram Bohra Vs State of Rajasthan

Central Warehousing Corporation Vs Commissioner of Customs (Preventive)