Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Manoj Kumar vs Jvvnl Jodhpur & Ors on 14 September, 2016
Author: Jaishree Thakur
Bench: Jaishree Thakur
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
AT JODHPUR
--------------------------------------------------------
CIVIL WRIT(CW) No. 10080 of 2016
PETITIONER
Manoj Kumar S/o Roshan Lal, aged about 34 years, R/o
House No 6/10. PWD Colony, Ward no. 2, Anoopgarh,
District Sri Ganganagar at present posted as Technical
Helper, AEN (O&M), JVVNL Anoopgarh, District Sri
Ganganagar (Raj)
VERSUS
RESPONDENTS.
1. Jodhpur Vidhyut Vitram Nigam Ltd. Through
Managing Director, Jodhpur Discom, New power House,
Jodhpur.
2. The Secretary (Admin.) Jodhpur Vidhyut Vitran
Nigam Ltd., Jodhpur Discom, New Power House,
Jodhpur.
3. AEN (O&M), Jodhpur Vidhyut Vitran Nigam Ltd.
Anoopgarh, District Sri Ganganagar (Raj.)
Date of Order : 14.9.2016
HON'BLE Miss JAISHREE THAKUR,J.
Mr. HR CHAWLA, for the Petitioner
Mr. KULDEEP MATHUR}
Mr. KDS CHARAN } for the respondents.
JUDGMENT
-----
The present writ petition came to be filed with the following prayer:-
"(i) That the impugned order is contrary to the law and facts and is liable to be set aside in as much as it is submitted the respondent department has not appreciated the facts and circumstances of the case and has passed the impugned order in a mechanical manner, without application of mind and without assigning any reasons worth and the same has resulted into total miscarriage of justice and rather failure of justice.
Besides, the impugned order also suffers from the vice, infirmity and illegality and hence, the impugned order is liable to be set aside.
(ii) That according to the clause 3.1 the guideline published by the respondent department wherein it is mentioned that " क स भ न गम अन र / मच र स रणतय 03 वर स पव स नतररत ह क य ज यग व क स भ अन र अन तम प !च वर स अन ए ह पद पर पदस नपत ह रख ज यग । नवशर पररनस नतय' म( ह अन ररय'/ मच ररय' य य गयत , कमत एव! दकत दखत हए इस प व म( छट द ज स ग ।"
but in the present case the petitioner who has been from AEN (O&M), Sayla to AEN (O&M) Anoopgarh, vide order dated 30.06.2015 has yet completed only one year whereas as per the provision of guideline published by the respondent he could not be transferred prior completion of 3 years but respondents without adopting the aforementioned policy are bent upon the relieve the petitioner without considering the guideline published by the JVVNL itself. Hence, the impugned order deserves to be quashed and set aside.
(iii) That except to the petitioner one more person namely Manoj Kumar is working on the post of Technical Helper in the office of the respondent No. 3 since last four years and the father's name of the Manoj Kumar is not mentioned in the transfer order but the respondents are bent upon the relieve the petitioner. As per the guideline (Annexure-4) a person can not transfer prior to passing of a period of 3 years of his posting to a place and another Manoj Kumar who has completed four years of service may be transferred so the petitioner orally requested to the respondent No.3 to confirm about transfer order from the office of the respondent No.2 but respondent No. 3 is bent upon to relieve the petitioner.
(iv) That the petitioner is a lower salaried person who according to the guideline at Para No. 3.4 " "अलप वत भ ग मच ररय' य समभव उ ग3ह नजल य उ सम पस स ' पर पदस नपत क य ज व बशत6 क उ नवरद न य!तण अन र : ई पनत ल रटपपण / नश यत व ग!भ र प 3 नत : नवभ ग य ज !च लनमबत ह ।" There is no departmental inqury or cause of complaint is pending against the petitioner but the respondent without considering the afore mention provision of the guidelines the respondents have passed the order dated 23.08.2016.
Hence, the impugned order deserves to be quashed and set-aside."
Counsel for the petitioner contends that the transfer order dated 23.08.2016 by which 77 persons came to be transferred, there were no description of the parentage as against the names reflected in the list. There are two persons working in the same office having the name Manoj Kumar and therefore, the transfer order has been passed without any application of the mind.
It is also contended that the petitioner is a low paid employee working on the post Technical Helper and as such ought not to be transferred from Sri Ganganagar to Bikaner Circle.
Per contra, Mr. Kuldeep Mathur and Mr. KDS Charan, counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents contend that the transfer has been made on account of administrative exigencies for rationalisation of manpower to fill up the vacancies. It is also contended that the correction has been made and corrigendum has been issued which is to be read in continuation of the office order dated 23.08.2016, wherein the name of the petitioner appearing at Serial No. 36 is to be read as Shri Manoj Kumar S/o Shri Roshan Lal instead of Shri Manoj Kumar alone. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through pleadings of the record and note that most of persons transferred under the impugned order have joined service.
In a recent judgment rendered in DB Civil Special Appeal No. 629/2016 in Institute of Advance Studies in Education & Anr Vs Pradeep Kumar Sharma decided on 09.08.2016 in which it has been held:-
Transfer is an incidence of service. Normally Courts refrain from interference unless there is violation of statutory rules or regulations, it is shown to be afflicted by malafides or is vindictive/punitive in nature. Barring these exceptions it shall be wholly inappropriate exercise of jurisdiction to sit as an appellate authority over an order of transfer to decide the manner in which the employer shall conduct its affairs and the manner in which it will utilize its personnel at one location or the other sans its own requirements. The primary duty of an employee is to first comply the order of transfer and then represent. 5 Failure to join may be construed as misconduct also.
If it is the employer's privilege and prerogative to transfer an employee from one place to another, the fact that it may be at a considerable distance is a wholly irrelevant consideration. If the employee is of the opinion that the allowance is not sufficient, he is at liberty to pursue his remedies in accordance with law including under the rules and regulations governing his employment The contention raised that the transfer order is without application of mind is wholly unwarranted. In fact, the petitioner was perfectly aware that the transfer order pertained to him which resulted in the filing of the writ petition. In any case corrigendum has been issued as partial modification towards the transfer order dated 23.08.2016 which itself reflects that the petitioner (Shri Manoj Kumar S/o Shri Roshan Lal) is the person, who has been transferred.
A perusal of the appointment letter itself specifies that the petitioner is liable to be posted at any place in Rajasthan or any Project under the Management/Control/Partial of Jodhpur Discoms.
In view of the fact that no malafide is alleged and the transfer order is on account of administrative exginecy, this court is not inclined to interfere with the same.
Resultantly, the writ petition stands dismissed.
(JAISHREE THAKUR),J.
sudheer