Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur
Ramesh Chand Sharma vs Raj Civil Service Appel Tribu Ors on 9 February, 2011
Author: Ajay Rastogi
Bench: Ajay Rastogi
In the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan
Jaipur Bench
**
Civil Writ Petition No.1714/2011
Ramesh Chand Sharma Versus RCSAT & Ors
Date of Order ::: 09/02//2011
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ajay Rastogi
Mr. Anand Sharma, for petitioner.
Petitioner while serving as Senior Teacher having remained posted at one place since August, 2009 in Govt. Upper Primary School Khokawala Bassi vide order dt. 30/09/2010 on being transferred within district Jaipur at Jhuta Sirodiyo Ki Dhani Sambhar Lake, allegedly as per own saying at a distance of 90 Kms preferred appeal-3681/2010, which at first instance, was dismissed by learned Tribunal vide order dt.18/11/2010, with the direction to the petitioner to make representation and respondents were also directed to decide his representation in accordance with law but the same was rejected by the auhtority vide order dt.23/12/2010, which again was challenged in Appeal-49/2011 but was dismissed by the Tribunal vide judgment impugned herein after having taken note of the fact that the petitioner remained posted at Bassi since August, 2009 and has been transferred vide order impugned only at a distance of 90 kms within district Jaipur.
Counsel submits that from order of transfer dt.30/09/2010 impugned it clearly manifest that he has been transferred as if on his own request since TA/DA claim has been made admissible to him and that apart, his wife is also posted at Bassi and as per Government Circulars issued from time to time, if both the spouse are Government servant, they are to be posted at one place. Counsel further submits that the State authority has rejected representation of petitioner in an arbitrary manner vide order dt.23/12/2010 and that too has not been properly appreciated by learned Tribunal while rejecting his appeal vide judgments impugned herein and main thrust of petitioner's Counsel is that some of judgments reference of which has been made, have no application in the facts of present case, which according to Counsel clearly shows that facts on hand have not been examined by the learned Tribunal while rejecting his appeal.
Submissions made by Counsel are wholly without substance for the reason that as regards grievance raised about non-payment of TA/DA, competent authority while rejecting his representation vide order dt.23/12/2010 has clarified that due to an error, it was mentioned and since the transfer order has been passed in the interest of administration, the benefit of TA/DA can be claimed by him.
As regards submissions that wife of petitioner is also posted at Bassi and Circulars issued by State Government being violated, suffice it to say that these are only administrative guidelines and have no statutory force and even in instant case, petitioner has been transferred at a distance of 90 kms as has been taken note of by learned Tribunal vide judgment impugned, and certainly he remained posted at nearby places which has been taken note of by the authority while transferring him. If husband & wife both are Government servant, it is always expected that they should remain posted at nearby their posting place. However, it is always for the authority to consider in exigency of service.
Transfer is otherwise an incidence of service and does not affect either of service conditions and one cannot claim any lien to continue at one place of posting for times to come.
However, petitioner has imputed malice and what has been submitted is that the Teacher having made complaint against Head Master and he being an influenced person has got him transferred. The submissions is wholly without substance for the reason that he has been transferred by the authority competent against whom no malice has been imputed and Head Master has no right of say in the matter of transfer. The learned Tribunal taking note of material on record was not inclined to interfere in the order of transfer impugned and accordingly dismissed his appeal vide judgment dt.07/10/2010 (Ann.10). It is not the case of petitioner that statutory rules have been violated while passing order of his transfer impugned or action of the authority being actuated with malice in absence whereof, no interference is called for.
Consequently, writ petition fails and is hereby dismissed. (Ajay Rastogi), J.
K.Khatri/p4/ 1714CW2011Feb9DsTrns.doc