Dismissed

Smt. Megha Ratan v. the State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC6 Mar 2024CW/2831/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Rajasthan dismissed a writ petition challenging the transfer of a Deputy Director from Bikaner to Alwar. The Court held that the Commissioner had the valid authority, the required consent was inherent in the joint office structure, and the posts were equivalent regarding pay.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was dismissed. Stay petitions and pending applications were disposed of.

Smt. Megha Ratan Vs the State of Rajasthan — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Rajasthan HC (2024)

¶1

[2024:RJ-JD:11277]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶3

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2831/2024

¶4

Smt. Megha Ratan W/o Mayur Goyal, Aged About 38 Years, B-198, Sudarshan Nagar, Bikaner, District Bikaner (Raj.)

¶5

----Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

The State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary (Admn.), Department Of Women And Child Development, Secretariat, Rajasthan Jaipur.

¶8

The Commissioner, Department Of Women Empowerment And Panchayati Raj (Women Empowerment), Rajasthan Jaipur.

¶9

Dr. Anuradha Saxena, Assistant Director, Women Empowerment Sikar. Now Transferred As Dy. Director, Women Empowerment, Bikaner.

¶10

----Respondents

¶11

For Petitioner(s)	:	Mr. Hamir Singh Sidhu Mr. PradeepSingh Khosa
For Respondent(s)	:	Mr. Jitendra Choudhary for Mr. Praveen Khandelwal, AAG
		Mr. Anil Gaur with Mr. Aman Gaur, for respondent No.3

¶12

HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE REKHA BORANA

¶13

Order

¶14

06/03/2024

¶15

The present writ petition has been preferred against order No.3373 dated 20.02.2024 whereby the petitioner, who is working as a Deputy Director, has been sought to be transferred from Bikaner to Alwar qua a vacant post.

¶16

The petition has been preferred on three grounds: firstly, the order impugned has been passed by the Commissioner of the Women Empowerment Department whereas the State

[2024:RJ-JD:11277]

[CW-2831/2024]

(2 of 5)

Government, being the appointing authority, can only pass the order of transfer in terms of Rule 2 of the Rajasthan Women Empowerment (State and Subordinate) Service Rules, 2017; (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Rules of 2017’) secondly, the order impugned is in contravention to Rule 8(iii) of the Rajasthan Panchayat Raj (Transferred Activities) Rules, 2011 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Rules of 2011’) which provides that a transfer from one district to another can only be made with the consent of the Panchayati Raj Department; and thirdly , private respondent No.3, who has been transferred in her place, is the Assistant Director and hence, could not have been transferred on the post of Deputy Director.

¶21

Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that firstly, the order impugned has been passed in pursuance to the direction as issued by the State Government and after sanction been received by the State Government in terms of law. Secondly, the order impugned has evidently been passed by the Commissioner of the Women Empowerment Department as well as of the Panchayati Raj (Women Empowerment) Department and the same hence, is a compliance of provision of Rule 8(iii) of the Rules of 2011.

¶22

So far as the first ground as raised is concerned, learned counsel for the State submitted that the pay level of the Assistant Director and the Deputy Director is same and it cannot be termed that the Assistant Director is subordinate to the Deputy Director.

¶23

Learned counsel appearing for private respondent submitted that the petitioner, in her complete tenure of 12 years service, has

¶24

(3 of 5) [CW-2831/2024]

¶25

[2024:RJ-JD:11277]

¶26

remained posted at Bikaner for more than 9 years and hence, her transfer does not deserve any interference.

¶27

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record.

¶28

So far as the first ground raised by learned counsel for the petitioner is concerned, Rule 2(a) of the Rules of 2017 defines “Appointing Authority” as under :

¶29

“(a) “Appointing Authority” in respect of the posts included in State Service means the Government and in respect of posts of Subordinate Service means the Director of Commissioner, Women Empowerment and includes such other officer or authority who may with the approval of the Government be specially empowered by the Director or Commissioner to exercise the powers and perform the functions of the Appointing Authority;”

¶30

A bare perusal of the above definition makes it clear that although the Government is the appointing authority of the posts including State Services, it specifically includes State officer or the authority who may, with the approval of the Government, be specially empowered to exercise the powers and perform the functions of the appointing authority. Meaning thereby, the said power can be exercised by the authority empowered/delegated authority to do so.

¶31

It is clear on record that the petitioner has been transferred after approval from the Secretary to the Government of Women and Child Development Department. The said ground hence, cannot be said to be tenable.

¶32

(4 of 5) [CW-2831/2024]

¶33

[2024:RJ-JD:11277]

¶34

So far as the second ground regarding consent of the Panchayati Raj Department been not taken is concerned, a bare perusal of the order impugned shows that the said order has been passed by the Commissioner who holds the said office of both the Departments – Women Empowerment as well as the Panchayati Raj Department. Therefore, it cannot be said that there is a contravention of Rule 8(iii) of the Rules of 2011. The above proposition has even been upheld by the Division Bench of this Court in Dinesh Kharadi Vs. State of Rajasthan and

¶35

Others, D.B. Special Appeal (Writ) No.34/2023 (decided on 01.02.2023).

¶36

The third ground as raised by learned counsel for the petitioner also does not hold any water as it is clear on record that the post of Assistant Director is also a State Service post and pay-scale of both the Deputy Director as well as the Assistant Director is same.

¶37

It is further clear on record that the order impugned has been passed by the competent authority for administrative reasons. The same cannot be termed to be malafide on any ground.

¶38

It is further undisputed on record that the petitioner, who is resident of Bikaner, since her date of joining has remained posted at Bikaner only for more than a period of 9 years. It is settled proposition of law that the transfer is incidence of service and no employee can as a matter of right claim that he/she shall remain posted at a particular place of posting for complete

(5 of 5)

[2024:RJ-JD:11277]

[CW-2831/2024]

tenure of service and that he/she cannot be transferred on any count.

¶43