Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur
Vikash Lodha S/O Shri Pradeep Lodha vs Rajasthan State Road Transport ... on 17 February, 2025
Author: Sameer Jain
Bench: Sameer Jain
[2025:RJ-JP:5805]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1329/2025
Suryabhan Singh Shaktawat S/o Shiv Singh Age about 46 years, R/o
Village Gopalpura, Post Bhindar - Tehsil Bhindar District Udaipur
Rajasthan, At present posted as Conductor Depot Udaipur Rajasthan.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation through its Chairman
and Managing Director, Parivahan Marg, Chomu House, Jaipur
(Rajasthan) - 302 001.
2. The Executive Director (Traffic) Rajasthan State Road Transport
Corporation Parivahan Marg, Chomu House, Jaipur (Rajasthan) - 302
001.
3. The Chief Manager Udaipur Depot, RSRTC, District Udaipur
Rajasthan.
----Respondents
Along with connected matters shown in the appended Schedule-I
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. RB Sharma Ganthola
Mr. Vinod Kumar Singhal
Mr. RD Meena
Mr. Santosh Singh Shekhawat
Ms.Vinita Saini for Mr.Sunil Kumar
Singodiya
Mr.Vinayak Kumar Joshi
Mr.Gajender Sharma
Mr.Rahul Ghiya
Mr.Sunil Kumar Saini
Mr.Yogesh Kumar Sharma
Vinod Kumar Sharma
Mr.Raj Kumar Goyal
For Respondent(s) : Mr. RN Mathur, Sr.Adv. with
Mr. Prateek Singh
Mr. Rajpal Dhankar
Mr. Pranav Bhansali
Mr. Yash Joshi
Mr. Indrajeet Deora
Mr. Purshottam Sharma, MD, RSRTC
Ms. Jyoti Chauhan, Executive Director,
RSRTC
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SAMEER JAIN
Judgment
Reserved on :: 06/02/2025
Pronounced on :: 17/02/2025
1. Considering the akin factual narrative and at the
request of the learned counsel appearing for the parties, the
instant batch of petitions are clubbed together, for an efficacious,
(Downloaded on 19/02/2025 at 12:11:34 AM)
[2025:RJ-JP:5805] (2 of 16) [CW-1329/2025]
speedy and convenient adjudication of the lis in hand. With the
consent of the learned counsel representing various parties,
SBCWP No. 1329/2025 titled as Suryabhan Singh
Shekhawat VS. RSRTC and Ors. is taken up as the lead
petition. The contentions noted henceforth are endorsed by the
counsel representing the parties in the appended Schedule - I. It
is made clear that the instant judgment shall be made applicable
on mutatis mutandis basis upon the instant batch of petitions.
2. Vide orders dated 05.02.2025 and 06.02.2025 an
interim protection to maintain status quo qua the instant dispute
was granted, and to attain better perceptivity the CMD and the
Executive Director of the concerned department were directed to
mark presence in the Court/appear via Video Conferencing to
render necessary assistance to learned counsel representing the
respondent-department and the Court. The said officials marked
presence and assisted the counsel representing the respondents.
3. The lead petition SBCWP No. 1329/2025 (supra) is
filed with the following prayers:
"1) By an appropriate writ, order or direction
to respondent impugned transfer as well as
reliving order dated 15/01/2025 (Annexure- 1)
may kindly be quashed and set-aside and
petitioner may kindly be allowed working on the
post of conductor Udaipur Depot.
2) Further his salary may kindly be give as per
rule with interest in the interest of justice"
4. The instant petition is filed assailing the impugned
transfer order dated 15.01.2025, whereby the respondent-RSRTC
had transferred a number of low paid employees, who were
(Downloaded on 19/02/2025 at 12:11:34 AM)
[2025:RJ-JP:5805] (3 of 16) [CW-1329/2025]
working on the post of Conductors or Drivers, sans any rhyme and
reason, by a pick and choose method.
CONTENTIONS BY LEARNED COUNSEL REPRESENTING THE
PETITIONERS :
5. At the outset, learned counsel representing the
petitioners have averred that the respondent-RSRTC is a statutory
body therefore, by the virtue of mandate as enumerated under the
provisions of Section 45 of the Rajasthan Road Transport
Corporation Act, 1950 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act of
1950'), the Corporation had framed the employee service
regulation to govern the service condition of its employees as
under the name 'Rajasthan State Road Transport Employees
Service Regulations, 1965' (hereinafter referred to as "the
Regulations of 1965').
6. It was further averred that vide the impugned office
order Nos.,Q&@eq[;k-@;krk-@laLFkk-@ih&1@25@22 and ,Q&eq[;k-@;krk-@laLFkk-@
ih&1@25@24 dated 15.01.2025, approximately 240 low paid
employees were transferred, stating that the following
'Parichalaks' are transferred, however, neither any explanation
was tendered to the employees, nor any modus operandi adopted
for ordering the said transfer was brought to the public notice.
7. Nevertheless, whilst adopting a hand-in-glove
approach, or whilst being under influence of certain influential and
affluent persons, the transfer order(s) qua a number of employees
was revoked/cancelled, as reflected by the clarification order
dated 15.01.2025,,Q&eq[;k-@;krk-@laLFkk-@ih&1@25@24; and being
(Downloaded on 19/02/2025 at 12:11:34 AM)
[2025:RJ-JP:5805] (4 of 16) [CW-1329/2025]
aggrieved of the said action of the respondents and the inaction of
not considering the grievances of the employees/petitioners, the
petitioners were bound to knock the doors of this Court.
8. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners have
articulated a number of irregularities, that is conducted by the
respondent-RSRTC whilst passing the said transfer order, for
instance, the impugned transfer order was passed sans
considering the fact that the petitioners/employees are low paid
employees; that the respondent-RSTRC without considering the
geographical, social and financial repercussion passed order
transferring its employees at distant places like from Jaipur to
Jaisalmer, Bharatpur to Dungarpur, Ajmer to Banswara, Abu Road
to Jaipur etc. (approximately 600 kms. Apart).
9. Nonetheless, the respondent-RSRTC did not even
consider the fact that a number of transferred employees/
petitioners were on verge of their superannuation, and less than
two years of service was left to their age of superannuation.
Thence, it can be deduced that the said transfer order was passed
bypassing the state government policy, as despite being directed
that the employees of whose service, less than two years are left
need not to be transferred, the respondents chose to include such
individuals/persons in the transfer list dated 15.01.2025.
10. Consecutively, learned counsel have apprised the Court
with the fact that as on date there is no policy/fiat that governs
the actions or grants directions to the respondent-RSRTC for
passing of transfer orders. It is reprehensible that despite the fact
that respondent corporation, RSRTC is in existence over decades
(Downloaded on 19/02/2025 at 12:11:34 AM)
[2025:RJ-JP:5805] (5 of 16) [CW-1329/2025]
and has an extensive manpower, approximately 20,000, working
under it, in nonexistence of a policy/fiat, transfer orders are
passed with a pick and choose manner. The said approach
corroborates the respondent-RSRTC sifts out its employees with
non-application of mind, arbitrariness and illegality.
11. Moreover, respondent-RSRTC had passed the said
transfer order without taking note of the fact that certain
appointments were granted under the compassionate appointment
scheme, and it is unambiguous that compassionate appointments
are granted when the said person who attain employment is the
sole earner of the family and whole of the family is dependent on
that limited income. It is pertinent to note that respondents paid
no heed to the needs of the female employees, as a number of
female employees are also transferred, at distant places, that too
at this crucial time when their children are undergoing the pre-
board examinations and the board examinations for Secondary
and Senior Secondary classes is scheduled to begin in the month
of March.
12. It is undisputed that women not only strengthen the
roots of the family, but with growing world have also contributed
to the pecuniary needs of the family. Therefore, their transfer shall
shake and affect not just the employee, but whole of the family,
inclusive of their children, elderly aged parents and other
dependents.
13. Lastly, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners
had submitted that the time chosen for lifting the ban for a period of ten days is chosen with malice intentions, as during the said (Downloaded on 19/02/2025 at 12:11:34 AM) [2025:RJ-JP:5805] (6 of 16) [CW-1329/2025] period, a number of children of the employees have their Board examinations scheduled. Withal, disturbing a family at such crucial and vital hour not only intrudes the mental peace of an individual, but can also leave an inerasable mark upon the student/children's career.
14. In support of the contentions made insofar, learned counsel representing the petitioners, after endorsing the aforementioned submissions have placed reliance upon the ratio encapsulated in Kashi Ram Sharma Vs. The Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation & Ors. registered as SBCWP No. 1845/2025 decided vide judgment dated 28.01.2025; Shaitan Singh Vs. Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation & Ors. registered as SBCWP No. 15199/2023 decided vide judgment dated 08.04.2024 and Shri Bhuvneshwar Pareek Vs. the State of Rajasthan & Anr. registered as SBCWP No. 3164/2024 decided vide judgment dated 04.03.2024. CONTENTIONS BY THE COUNSEL REPRESENTING THE RESPONDENTS :
15. Per contra, learned Senior counsel Mr. Mathur assisted by Mr. Singh appearing for the respondents have abstained themselves to argue the matter at length however, on directions of the Court chose to submit their contentions as written submissions and reply.
16. Amongst the manifold contentions made by the learned counsel appearing for the respondents, a few are enumerated herein below:
(Downloaded on 19/02/2025 at 12:11:34 AM)
[2025:RJ-JP:5805] (7 of 16) [CW-1329/2025] 16.1 That the primary and sole authority that has the prerogative to pass any orders in pursuance to the place of posting/ transfers/ deputation or any other allied motion is the employer itself.
16.2 That the transfer is an incidence of service and the said view is substantiated and upheld by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in a catena of judgments.
16.3 That the is due application of mind and rationale behind passing of the transfer order dated 15.01.2025, as the same is a part of the governance and shall have a lasting impact and aid upon the administrative control of the respondent-RSRTC. Thence, it can be deduced that the said transfer order is passed only after considering the administrative exigencies. 16.4 That transfers in governmental postings or in the posting under a Corporation is also essential to maintain, regularize and supervise the employees; it acts as a measure to maintain checks and balance in/with the employees. It is germane to note that in order to prevent malpractices like indulgence in corruption and other illegal activities, reallocation of places of posting to different employees is essential.
17. Additionally, it was stated that the said transfer order was passed after considering and determining significant aspects for instance, the history of posting, financial damages, performance by the concerned employee in the previous year(s), exclusively with the motive to ensure efficiency, accountability and integrity qua the employees, in addition to the public interest and welfare.
(Downloaded on 19/02/2025 at 12:11:34 AM)
[2025:RJ-JP:5805] (8 of 16) [CW-1329/2025]
18. Consecutively, learned counsel had placed reliance upon a catena of judgments passed by the Apex Court in Mrs. Shilpi Bose & ors. Vs. State of Bihar reported in AIR 1991 SC 532, Rajendra Singh Vs. State of U.P. reported in (2009) 15 SCC 178, National Hydroelectric Power Corporation Ltd. Vs. Shri Bhagwan reported in (2001) 8 SCC 574, Abani Kanta Ray Vs. State of Orissa & Ors. reported in 1995 Supp. (4) SCC 169, Union of India & Ors. Vs. S.L. Abbas reported in (1993) 4 SCC 357, Cipla Ltd. Vs. Jayakumar R. reported in (1999) 1 SCC 300 and Sk. Nausad Rahaman Vs. Union of India reported in (2022) 12 SCC 1, and had contended that the scope of judicial intervention in the transfer orders passed due to administrative exigencies is miniscule.
19. Successively, it was stated that the judicial intervention in such disputes is only warranted if there are any patent malafides in the assailed transfer order or when there is any arbitrariness on part of the employer (corporation/RSRTC in the matter in hand) in interpretation of any professed norm or principles governing the transfer policy.
20. Vis-à-vis the contentions stated hereinabove, learned counsel had also fairly conceded the fact that as on date there in no specific policy/fiat that governs the circumstances under which transfer orders can be passed. Notwithstanding anything stated hereinabove, the lifting of the ban for a period of ten days is well justified as the assailed transfer order was prerequisite to the administrative exigencies. Consequentially, the transfer order (Downloaded on 19/02/2025 at 12:11:34 AM) [2025:RJ-JP:5805] (9 of 16) [CW-1329/2025] dated 15.01.2025 was passed sans any discrimination on the basis of sex or mode of appointment (via compassionate appointment policy or via regular mode of recruitment); whilst maintaining parity as per the predetermined usage.
21. Lastly, it was contended that the persons/employees who are aggrieved of any such order(s) are at liberty to raise their grievances by way of a representation, which is always considered in accordance of law. Therefore, taking note of the fact that no adequate evidences are placed on record by the petitioners qua their grievances and them being low paid employees, the present batch of petitions is ought to be dismissed.
DISCUSSION AND FINDINGS :
22. Considering the aforementioned facts and circumstances of the case, taking note of the judgments cited at the Bar, the arguments averred by the learned counsel for the parties, and upon a perusal of the relevant documents, this Court is of the following view:
22.1 That the Hon'ble Apex Court, through a plethora of judgments, has time and again held that the permissibility and scope of judicial review against transfer orders is minuscule. The rationale exercised to circumscribe the Courts interference with transfer orders whilst exercising writ jurisdiction, primarily pertains to the fact that a bedlam of an aggravated magnitude shall ensue within the workings of the Government, if all employees, posted at a location of their liking, refuse to and/or contest their postings, when issued on account of administrative exigencies. Inevitably, the only scope of interference subsists in an (Downloaded on 19/02/2025 at 12:11:34 AM) [2025:RJ-JP:5805] (10 of 16) [CW-1329/2025] eventuality where the transfer orders are issued on account of certain malafides, at the end of the transferring authority. 22.2 That the consideration regarding which employee should be posted 'where and when', falls purely within the administrative domain of the appropriate authority/department to decide, in the best interests of the working of the said department, whilst seeking to advance the department's resultant output and service efficiency. Unless the order is vitiated by mala fides or is passed in violation of any applicable statutory provisions, the Courts ought not to extend interference in such orders, and if any hitches are faced by the employer/department, the said issue/grievance should be referred to the appellate authority.
22.3 That the issue in hand is not newfangled and is already settled by the Hon'ble Supreme Court vide its judgment encapsulated in Mrs. Shipli Bose (supra), the relevant extract from the said ratio is reproduced herein below:
"3. After hearing learned Counsel for the parties and having considered the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the opinion that the High Court committed serious error in interfering with the transfer Orders of primary school teachers. The High Court held that the District Education Establishment Committee had no jurisdiction to transfer the Primary School teachers on their request. We find no justification for this conclusion. There is no dispute that the District Education Establishment Committee is competent to transfer Primary School teachers from one place to the other but (Downloaded on 19/02/2025 at 12:11:34 AM) [2025:RJ-JP:5805] (11 of 16) [CW-1329/2025] merely because such transfers were made on the request of teachers, the committee is divested of its jurisdiction. The Director of the Primary Education had issued directions that lady teachers posted in distant areas or rural areas may be accommodated to the place of their request to avoid hardship to them. These directions are reasonable, and the District Education Establishment Committee followed the same principles in transferring the appellants on their requests to avoid hardship with was being caused to them. The respondents challenged the validity of the transfer before the High Court on another ground also that Primary School teachers posted in the urban areas were not liable to be transferred to rural areas though the State Government had issued circular on March 30, 1984 permitting transfers from urban areas to rural areas. The High Court did not interfere with the Order of the transfer on this ground instead it held that the transfer Orders were without jurisdiction as the same had been made on the appellants' request with a view of accommodate them. We fail to appreciate the reasoning recorded by the High Court. If the competent authority issued transfer Orders with a view to accommodate a public servant to avoid hardship, the same cannot and should not be interfered by the Court merely because the transfer Order were passed on the request of the employees concerned. The respondents have continued to be posted at their respective places for the last several years, they have no vested right to remain posted at one place. Since they hold transferable posts they are liable to be transferred from (Downloaded on 19/02/2025 at 12:11:34 AM) [2025:RJ-JP:5805] (12 of 16) [CW-1329/2025] one place to the other. The transfer Orders had been issued by the competent authority which did not violate any mandatory Rule, therefore the High Court had no jurisdiction to interfere with the transfer Orders.
4. In our opinion, the Courts should not interfere with a transfer Order which are made in public interest and for administrative reasons unless the transfer Orders are made in violation of any mandatory statutory Rule or on the ground of malafide. A Government servant holding a transferable post has no vested right to remain posted at one place or the other, he is liable to be transferred from one place to the other. Transfer Orders issued by the competent authority do not violate any of his legal rights. Even if a transfer Order is passed in violation of executive instructions or Orders, the Courts ordinarily should not interfere with the Order instead affected party should approach the higher authorities in the Department. If the Courts continue to interfere with day-to-day transfer Orders issued by the Government and its subordinate authorities, there will be complete chaos in the Administration which would not be conducive to public interest. The High Court over looked these aspects in interfering with the transfer Orders."
(Emphasis laid)
23. Howsoever, qua the matter in hand this Court is strained and astounded to know that despite the fact that the respondent-RSRTC functions as an auxiliary entity of the state (Downloaded on 19/02/2025 at 12:11:34 AM) [2025:RJ-JP:5805] (13 of 16) [CW-1329/2025] government, with an intensive manpower of approximately 10,000 employees working as Conductors, Drivers (Parichalaks) and is responsible for the operation of public transport both within the state and across the country, the respondents have failed to establish a well-defined policy on transfers, as acknowledged in their reply regarding the issue in hand.
24. It is further an admitted fact that transfer orders were issued following the lifting of the transfer ban for a period of ten days, and the process of examination was conducted in a hasty and arbitrary manner.
25. The Court notes the petitioners' claims that they are low-paid employees, and that the examinations of their children at the Secondary and Senior Secondary levels are anticipated to continue until March. These facts are duly acknowledged. Additionally, the petitioners assert that the transfers are implemented without a formal policy, and that such transfers are made to locations approximately 500 to 700 kilometers away, without providing any specific justification. It is also contended that, out of 6000 conductor positions, of which 3000 are currently occupied by regular employees, only 240 are effected, and no rationale is provided as to why certain conductors, who may have a history of posting, a record of complaints, or other justifiable reasons, were not considered for transfer.
26. The allegations made by the petitioners regarding the lack of a policy and corroborative evidence cannot be conclusively addressed at this stage. Furthermore, it is observed that the State contends that number of transfers in the last two years is (Downloaded on 19/02/2025 at 12:11:34 AM) [2025:RJ-JP:5805] (14 of 16) [CW-1329/2025] relatively low, especially in regard to employees nearing the age of superannuation, yet the transfers of such employees are still carried out in the instant batch of petitions. In light of these submissions, it is imperative for the Court to consider whether the transfers are carried out in accordance with any established policy, and if not, whether the absence of such policy and the lack of specific justifications render the transfers unjust or arbitrary.
27. After considering the submissions made by the learned counsel for the respective parties, this Court is of the view that, with regard to the petitioners who are before this Court, the transfer orders shall remain in abeyance until their representations are duly considered by the respondents. The decision on the representations is directed to be concluded within a period of three months from the date of filing of the same.
28. During this period (three months from the date of passing of this judgment), the respondent-Corporation/RSRTC is directed to formulate an appropriate policy, taking into account all relevant factors like socio-economic condition of the employees, history of posting, period when the transfer orders can be passed, and the administrative exigencies. The said transfer policy should align with those in place in similar Corporations in other states. Upon formulation of the said policy, appropriate transfer orders shall be passed in accordance with the provisions of the policy. DIRECTIONS :
29. In accumulation to the content of paragraph number 27 and 28, the following directions shall be made applicable upon the parties to the instant batch of petitions:
(Downloaded on 19/02/2025 at 12:11:34 AM)
[2025:RJ-JP:5805] (15 of 16) [CW-1329/2025] 29.1 That the transfer orders concerning the petitioners shall remain in abeyance for a period of three months, from the date of passing of this judgment.
29.2 That the respondents shall formulate a comprehensive transfer policy for various cadres, taking into account the administrative requirements, the hardships of the employees and in line with the policies of similar Corporations in other states. 29.3 Upon formulation of the said transfer policy, the respondents shall issue fresh transfer orders, considering the overall position of all employees, including their erstwhile posting history and other relevant criteria.
29.4 That notwithstanding the ban imposed by the State; as per the directions of this Court, the respondents shall be at liberty to pass transfer orders considering the administrative exigencies in order to uphold the interests of justice.
30. In view of the foregoing, the present batch of petitions is hereby disposed of, in accordance with the directions set forth above. Pending application(s) and stay applications are also hereby disposed of.
(SAMEER JAIN),J Preeti Asopa (Downloaded on 19/02/2025 at 12:11:34 AM) [2025:RJ-JP:5805] (16 of 16) [CW-1329/2025] SCHEDULE - I Sr. No. SBCWP No. Reserved on
1. 1330/2025 06.02.2025 2. 1331/2025 3. 1332/2025 4. 1333/2025 5. 1334/2025 6 1613/2025 7. 1697/2025 8. 1699/2025 9. 1704/2025 10. 1705/2025 11. 1336/2025 12. 1132/2025 13. 1173/2025 14. 1197/2025 15. 1337/2025 16. 1339/2025 17. 1344/2025 18. 1346/2025 19. 1347/2025 20. 1349/2025 21. 1350/2025 22. 1360/2025 23. 1370/2025 24. 1543/2025 25. 1544/2025
11. 1834/2025 11.02.2025 12. 2243/2025
13. 1700/2025 12.02.2025
14. 1800/2025 13.02.2025 (Downloaded on 19/02/2025 at 12:11:34 AM) Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)