Allowed

Chandra Shekhar v. Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation

Rajasthan HC12 Mar 2024CW/3137/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court noted the petitioner's transfer distance was not excessive and held that transfer is an incident of service based on administrative efficiency. The petition was disposed of by directing the petitioner to submit a representation regarding vacant posts for consideration.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the petitioner to submit a representation before the competent authority regarding vacant posts within two weeks.

Chandra Shekhar Vs Rajasthan State Road Transport… — Service and Employment | Rajasthan HC (2024)

¶1

[2024:RJ-JD:11868]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶3

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3137/2024

¶4

Chandra Shekhar S/o Shri Hukma Ram, Aged About 54 Years, R/o Ward No. 4, Ratangarh, District Churu.

¶5

----Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation, Parivahan Marg, Chomu House, Jaipur

¶8

Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation, Sardarshahar Depot. Through Its Chief Manager.

¶9

----Respondents

¶10

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Chandra Shekhar, petitioner present in person

¶11

JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA

¶12

Order

¶13

12/03/2024

¶14

The petitioner has preferred the present writ petition challenging the order dated 20.02.2024 passed by respondent No.2, whereby he has been transferred from Sardarshehar to Hanumangarh.

¶15

It is to be noted that the distance between petitioner’s new place of posting (District Hanumangarh) and petitioner's present place of posting is about 150 kms.

¶16

In the opinion of this Court, the distance is not so much as to cause familial or financial inconvenience to the petitioner, particularly when the petitioner is not a low paid employee. 4. That apart, transfer is an incident of service and it is the subjective satisfaction of the employer to make transfers/posting for administrative efficiency and to meet with the exigencies.

[2024:RJ-JD:11868]

[CW-3137/2024]

(2 of 2)

This Court is therefore, not inclined to exercise its discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

¶21

Be that as it may.

¶22

Petitioner submits that he would be satisfied, if an appropriate direction is issued to the respondents to consider his representation to be posted at a nearby place, in accordance with law, where concerned post is lying vacant.

¶23

The present writ petition is, therefore, disposed of with the direction to the petitioner to address a representation before the competent authority pointing out vacant posts within a period of two weeks with certified copy of the order instant.

¶24

In case, such representation is filed by the petitioner, the competent authority shall decide the same, in accordance with law, preferably within a period of six weeks from the receipt thereof.

¶25

It is made clear that aforesaid direction to decide the representation has been issued only with a view to ensure expeditious redressal of petitioner’s grievance. The same may not be construed to be an order to decide the representation in a particular manner.

¶26

The stay application also stands disposed of accordingly.

¶27

(DINESH MEHTA),J

¶28

3-akansha/-

Chandra Shekhar v. Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Chandra Shekhar v. Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation

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

Birma Ram Vs Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation

Kailash Chand Bajiya Vs the State of Rajasthan

Jyoti Verma Vs State of Rajasthan

Gopal Chand Jat Vs the Jodhpur Vidyut Vitran Nigam Limited

Sajjan Singh Vs the State of Rajasthan

Mohammad Rafik Vs State of Rajasthan