Dismissed

Natwer Singh Pagi v. the Director

Rajasthan HC6 Mar 2024CW/2786/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petition challenging a transfer order on the ground that TA/DA was not granted was dismissed. The Court held that non-grant of TA/DA is an irregularity or error of inadvertence that does not invalidate the transfer order, provided the order does not state the transfer was on the employee's own request. The petitioner was left free to claim TA/DA in accordance with rules.

What did the court decide?

Petition dismissed; petitioner left free to claim TA/DA in accordance with rules.

Natwer Singh Pagi Vs the Director — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Rajasthan HC (2024)

¶1

[2024:RJ-JD:11432]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶3

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2786/2024

¶4

Natwer Singh Pagi S/o Shri Gemaji Pagi, Aged About 56 Years, R/o Ward No 3 Pagiyavada Fala, Mu.po. Seethal Dungarpur Rajasthan 314403.

¶5

----Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

The Director, Directorate Of Ayurved Department Government Of Rajasthan Ajmer.

¶8

----Respondent

¶9

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Ripudaman Singh

¶10

HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE REKHA BORANA

¶11

Order

¶12

06/03/2024

¶13

The present petition has been preferred against the order dated 20.02.2024 whereby the petitioner, who is working as Ayurved Nurse/Compounder, has been sought to be transferred from Government Ayurved Hospital, Shithal, Dungarpur to Government Ayurved Hospital, Dhariyawad, Pratapgarh.

¶14

The only ground raised in the petition is that vide the order impugned, direction for grant of TA/DA has been made only to the affected employees and as per the order, only two employees have been shown to be the affected ones. Meaning thereby, all the other employees as transferred vide the order impugned shall not be entitled to TA/DA.

¶15

Learned counsel submits that Rule 17 of the Rajasthan Travelling Allowance Rules, 1971 provide that a government servant who is transferred from one station to another in public

[2024:RJ-JD:11432]

[CW-2786/2024]

(2 of 4)

interest and not at his own request shall be entitled to Travelling Allowance and in case of an employee being transferred on his own request, no Travelling Allowance shall be granted. The petitioner did not ever make any request for transfer whereas what can be concluded from the order dated 20.02.2024 is that the petitioner has been transferred on his own request as he has not been granted any TA/DA and hence, the order impugned deserves to be set aside.

¶20

In support of his submission, counsel relied upon the judgments passed in Vijay Vishnoi vs. JVVNL & Ors.; S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.7268/2015 (decided on 26.08.2015) and Raju Ram Vishnoi vs. JVVNL & Ors.; S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.12515/2022 (decided on 14.09.2022) .

¶21

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the material available on record. 5. The following clause has been appended in the order impugned:

¶22

" उक्त में ्ቚभावि�त का቞ኌम�कों को नि�यमा�ुसार या्ቔा भ्ቈा ए�ं योगकाल देय होगा। "

¶23

A bare perusal of the above clause makes it clear that the same is a mere error made in inadvertence and nothing more than that. Had the intention been not to grant the travelling allowance, the fact of the same, that is, they having been transferred on their own request would have been incorporated in the order. Further, even if it is assumed that the same is not an error, as observed by the Coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Sharwan Kumar Prajapat vs. Jodhpur Vidhyut Vitran Nigam Ltd. & Ors.; S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.7341/2020 (decided on

¶24

(3 of 4) [CW-2786/2024]

¶25

[2024:RJ-JD:11432]

¶26

19.08.2020), merely because TA/DA has not been paid, an order of transfer cannot be said to be bad in the eye of law.

¶27

So far as the judgments in the case of Vijay Vishnoi and Raju Ram Vishnoi (supra) are concerned, it is clear that the same have been passed following the ratio of Champa Lal Parihar vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.; 2006(1) WLC 212 . Champa Lal Parihar (supra) was a matter wherein the impugned transfer order specifically reflected that the petitioner had been transferred on his own request whereas the petitioner therein had not requested for the same. Therefore, the Court, while observing the inherent error in the transfer order, observed that because of the said error, the petitioner would not be entitled to claim any Transfer Allowance and joining period, which would be unjust. Further, in the case of Champa Lal Parihar (supra), non-grant of TA/DA was not the only ground because of which the Court interfered. The Court also observed that if the said error in the transfer order would not be cured, the petitioner would loose his seniority and would be placed at the bottom of the seniority list.

¶28

The ratio as laid down in the case of Champa Lal Parihar (supra) would clearly not govern the present matter as herein there is no such observation in the transfer order that transfer of the petitioner has been made on account of his own request.

¶29

Concurring with the view in Sharwan Kumar Prajapat (supra), this Court is also of the clear opinion that non-grant of TA/DA can, at the best, be an irregularity which can be cured at any point of time.

¶30