Allowed

Narendra Kanwar v. the State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC6 Feb 2024CW/12853/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court disposed of a writ petition challenging a government employee's transfer. While reiterating the usual non-interference in transfers, the court lifted an interim stay on the transfer order, making it absolute with liberty to pass fresh orders only if administrative exigency arises.

What did the court decide?

The stay on the transfer order was lifted; matter disposed with liberty to pass fresh orders only if administrative exigency arises.

Narendra Kanwar Vs the State of Rajasthan — Service and Employment | Rajasthan HC (2024)

¶1

[2024:RJ-JD:6229]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶3

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 12853/2021

¶4

Narendra Kanwar W/o Sh. Kunj Bihari, Aged About 37 Years, R/o Bagri Nagar Opposite New Water Tank, Tehsil Sojat, District Pali (Raj.).

¶5

----Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

The State Of Rajasthan, Through The Joint Secretary (Admn.), Department Of Revenue (Group-I), Secretariat, Rajasthan Jaipur (Raj.).

¶8

The Registrar, Board Of Revenue, Ajmer (Raj.).

¶9

The District Collector (Land Records), Pali, District Pali. 4. Kishan Lal, Patwari (Revenue), Patwar Mandal, Shivpura, Tehsil Sojat, District Pali.

¶10

----Respondents

¶11

For Petitioner(s)	: Mr. PradeepSingh Khosa.
For Respondent(s)	: Mr. M.C. Bishnoi.

¶12

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN MONGA

¶13

Order

¶14

06/02/2024

¶15

Grievance of the petitioner stems from an impugned order dated 13.09.2021 (Annex.P/3), vide which the respondent No.4 was posted in place of petitioner and no order qua the petitioner was passed. However, during the pendency of writ proceedings, a co-ordinate bench of this court passed an interim order dated 18.09.2021 staying the implementation of the transfer order.

¶16

Aforesaid stay order continues to subsist in favor of the petitioner till date.

¶17

Transfers are a standard and integral aspect of government employment conditions. Employees do not possess an inherent

(2 of 2)

[2024:RJ-JD:6229]

[CW-12853/2021]

right to demand continuation of their service at a specific location.

¶22

This court ordinarily refrains from intervening in transfer matters, acknowledging administrative needs for employees to fulfill their duties at assigned locations.

¶23

In the instant case, given the duration of the interim protection granted by this court, its utility appears to have waned over time.

¶24

Be that as it may, the interim order is made absolute, but with liberty to the respondents to pass fresh orders in future, if necessary due to administrative exigency.

¶25

In the parting, it is made clear that granting liberty to pass fresh orders is not to be construed as a direction of this Court to necessarily pass fresh orders in case there is no such requirement otherwise.

¶26

Disposed of as above.

¶27

(ARUN MONGA),J

¶28

349-/Jitender//-

Narendra Kanwar v. the State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Narendra Kanwar v. the State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Khemraj Pargi Vs State of Rajasthan

Bajrang Lal Kumawat Vs State of Rajasthan

Durgesh Kumar Maheshwari Vs State of Rajasthan

Jeeva Lal Bhagora Vs the State of Rajasthan

Uma Nagpal Vs State of Rajasthan

Satyanarayan Tailor Vs State of Rajasthan