Dismissed¶¶33

Yash Choudhary Son of Shri Satyanarayan Choudhary v. Jaipur Vidyut Vitran Nigam Limited

Rajasthan HC10 Feb 2025CW/2237/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Rajasthan High Court Jaipur; CW-2237/2025; Sameer Jain, J.; transfer order 15.01.2025; Jaipur Vidyut Vitran Nigam Limited; JVVNL employee transfer; District Jaipur to Raghunathpura 310 kms; spouse policy; audit objections; administrative exigencies; public utility department; Shilpi Bose v. State of Bihar 1991 Supp (2) SCC 659; transfer incidence of service; relieved 18.01.2025; writ petition dismissed; representation on hardships within 7 days, adjudication within 15 days.

What did the court decide?

Petition dismissed; pending application(s) disposed of; petitioner accorded liberty to file a representation specifying his hardships before the competent authority within seven days, to be adjudicated within fifteen days thereafter. ¶¶33

Yash Choudhary Son of Shri Satyanarayan Choudhary Vs Jaipur Vidyut Vitran Nigam Limited — Rajasthan HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶¶33

Issue for consideration

Whether this court should interfere with the respondents' transfer order dated 15.01.2025 moving the petitioner from District Jaipur to Raghunathpura (approx. 310 kms away), pressed on grounds of spouse policy, parents' ill-health, prior relief/joining, and the petitioner's claim that the transfer was made to accommodate someone else rather than on administrative exigencies.

¶¶17

Court's answer

Transfer is an incidence of service, as per the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Shilpi Bose v. State of Bihar relied upon by this court, and the petitioner is already relieved vide order dated 18.01.2025 (having joined the latest place of posting).

¶¶31

Ratio / Principle

In the facts and circumstances of the case (public utility department, approx. ten years' posting at Jaipur with spouse), this court is not inclined to interfere with the transfer order.

¶¶32

Key takeaways

The petitioner is directed to be at liberty to file a representation specifying his hardships within seven days before the competent authority, who shall adjudicate the same within fifteen days thereafter.ratio¶¶33

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2237/2025 (decided 10/02/2025; Single Judge: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sameer Jain, High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan, Bench at Jaipur) - Petitioner Yash Choudhary, an employee of respondent Jaipur Vidyut Vitran Nigam Limited, challenged the transfer order dated 15.01.2025 moving him from District Jaipur to Raghunathpura (approx. 310 kms away), citing the spouse policy (both spouses serving in the respondent department), his parents' severe health issues, and alleging the transfer was to accommodate another person rather than on administrative exigencies. Respondents justified the transfer on administrative exigencies, audit objections and larger public interest, noting approx. ten years' Jaipur posting with spouse under the spouse policy. The court, noting the department is a public utility and relying on Shilpi Bose & Ors. v. State of Bihar & ors., 1991 Supp (2) SCC 659 (transfer is an incidence of service), and observing the petitioner stood relieved vide order dated 18.01.2025 and had joined the new posting, declined to interfere and dismissed the petition (pending applications disposed of). The petitioner was given liberty to file a representation specifying his hardships within seven days before the competent authority, to be adjudicated within fifteen days thereafter.

¶1

[2025:RJ-JP:5709]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶3

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2237/2025

¶4

Yash Choudhary Son Of Shri Satyanarayan Choudhary, Aged About 34 Years, Resident Of Plot 852, Ram Nagar, Shashtri Nagar, Jaipur.

¶5

----Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

Jaipur Vidyut Vitran Nigam Limited, Through Chief Managing Director, Vidyut Bhawan, Jyoti Nagar, Jaipur.

¶8

The Secretary (Admn), Jaipur Vidyut Vitran Nigam Limited, Vidyut Bhawan, Jyoti Nagar, Jaipur.

¶9

Executive Engineer (O And M), Jaipur Vidyut Vitran Nigam Limited, Sub Division, Shahpura, District Jaipur.

¶10

Assistant Engineer (O And M), Jaipur Vidyut Vitran Nigam Limited, Neem Ka Thana Road, Shahpura, District Jaipur.

¶11

Shri Mahesh Kumar Yadav, Junior Engineer, Under Transferred And Posted At Sub Office, Kanth Under Aen (O And M) Shahpura, District Jaipur.

¶12

----Respondents

¶13

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Pradeep Kalwaniya For Respondent(s) : Mr. Sandeep Singh Shekhawat

¶14

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SAMEER JAIN

¶15

Judgment

¶16

10/02/2025

¶17

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that petitioner has challenged the order dated 15.01.2025 issued by the respondents whereby petitioner was transferred from District Jaipur to Raghunathpura, which is 310 Kms. away.

¶18

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted as follows:-

[2025:RJ-JP:5709]

[CW-2237/2025]

(2 of 3)

(I) That petitioner and his wife (spouse) are both working in respondent-Department and as per the spouse policy, they may be transferred/kept at same place.

¶23

(ii) That petitioner’s parents are suffering from severe health issues.

¶24

(iii) That petitioner is already relieved vide order dated 18.01.2025 and had also joined at the latest place of posting. (iv) That petitioner is transferred to accommodate someone else and it is not the case of administrative exigencies. 3. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents has submitted as follows:-

¶25

(I) That petitioner as per history of posting was serving at Jaipur for a period of approximately 10 years along with his spouse and policy of spouse was duly considered.

¶26

(ii) That as per his instructions, there are certain audit objections, and considering the same, the said transfer order is passed.

¶27

(iii) That the said transfer is made on account of administrative exigencies and being a public utility department, respondents are entitled to transfer the petitioner in the larger public interest. 4. Heard and considered the rival submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, scanned the record of the case and analyzed the settled position of law. 5. It is noted that respondent-Department is a public utility department; that the history of posting suggests that approx. for period of 10 years, petitioner was at Jaipur and judgment passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Shilpi Bose & Ors. Vs. State of Bihar & ors. reported in 1991 Supp (2) SCC 659 ,

[2025:RJ-JP:5709]

[CW-2237/2025]

(3 of 3)

suggests that transfer is incidence of service, nevertheless, the petitioner is already relieved vide order dated 18.01.2025.

¶32

In the facts and circumstances, this court is not inclined to interfere in the present case.

¶33

Accordingly, present petition is dismissed. Pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of. Howsoever, the petitioner is at liberty to file a representation specifying his hardships, within a period a seven days before the competent authority, who will adjudicate the same within 15 days, thereafter.

¶34

(SAMEER JAIN),J

¶35

Pooja /144

Yash Choudhary Son of Shri Satyanarayan Choudhary v. Jaipur Vidyut Vitran Nigam Limited

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Yash Choudhary Son of Shri Satyanarayan Choudhary v. Jaipur Vidyut Vitran Nigam Limited

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Kishan Pal Singh S/O Ganga Singh Vs State of Rajasthan

Bulkesh Kumari D/O Shri Jagmal Singh W/O Kailash Kumar Poonia Vs State of Rajasthan

Manoj Kumar Verma S/O Shri Karta Ram Vs the State of Rajasthan

Himanshu Vs State Panchayati Raj Dep Ors.

Pokar Ram Son of Shri Jagdish Prasad Vs Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation

Lalita Bairwa Wife of Shri Gajendra Singh Bairwa Vs State of Rajasthan