Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
State Of Rajasthan And Ors vs Samleta on 11 October, 2018
Bench: Sandeep Mehta, Vinit Kumar Mathur
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 736/2018
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary, Medical And
Health Department, Govt. Of Rajasthan, Govt.
Secretariat, Jaipur.
2. Addl. Director, Administration, Medical And Health
Services, Jaipur.
3. Chief Medical And Health Officer, Ratangarh District
Churu.
4. Block Chief Medical And Health Officer, Rajgarh District
Churu.
5. Principal Secretary, Department Of Rural Development
And Panchayati Raj, Rajasthan, Jaipur.
----Appellants
Versus
Samleta W/o Shri Om Prakash Nehra, R/o Ludi Jhabar, Tehsil
Rajgarh, District Churu.
----Respondent
For Appellant(s) : Mr.K.L.Thakur, AAG with
Mr.Rishabh Tayal.
For Respondent(s) : Mr.Vikas Bijarnia.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP MEHTA
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINIT KUMAR MATHUR Judgment / Order 11/10/2018 The present appeal arises out of the order dated 14.11.2017 passed by learned Single Bench in S.B.C.W.P.No.11862/2017. The respondent was subjected to inter-district transfer vide order dated 15.9.2017. Vide notification dated 2.10.2010, the Primary Health Centre and Community Health Centres of the rural areas of the State of Rajasthan including the staff were transferred from Medical and Health Department to the Panchayati Raj Institution. The service conditions of such employees were to be governed by the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj (Transfer Activities) Rules, 2011.
Shri Thakur, learned Addl.Advocate General submits that even if it is assumed for a moment that the transfer was directed (2 of 3) [SAW-736/2018] in contravention of Rule 8 of the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj (Transfer Activities) Rules, 2011, the said deficiency has been rectified with the issuance of an ex post facto sanction dated 16.6.2018. Shri Thakur further submits that the present one is a case wherein the respondent employee was declared surplus in the district in which she was serving. He submits that in the cases of surplus employees being transferred, there is no requirement of obtaining any prior sanction from the Panchayati Raj Department.
Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent employee submits that the ex post facto sanction of the Panchayati Raj Department granted and/or obtained after the impugned transfer has been implemented, is of no relevance and therefore, learned Single Judge has rightly held that the consent was required to be obtained prior to the inter district transfer of the respondent employee.
We have heard and considered the submissions advanced at the Bar and have gone through the impugned order as well as the material placed on record.
Sub-rule (ii) of Rule 8 of the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj (Transfer Activities) Rules, 2011 clearly postulates that when a person is transferred from one District to another, there is a prerequisite condition of obtaining prior consent of Panchayati Raj Department. In the present case, the respondent is an employee of the Panchayati Raj Institution and she has been transferred from one district to another. Admittedly, no consent as per Rule 8 of the Rules of 2011 was obtained from the Panchayati Raj Department and therefore, her transfer is bad and in violation of the provisions of Rule 8 of the Rules of 2011. Even in the cases of (3 of 3) [SAW-736/2018] transfer of surplus employees, consent has to be obtained from the Panchayati Raj Department.
In view of the above observations, we are not inclined to interfere in the order passed by the learned Single Judge.
The appeal is, therefore, dismissed.
Consequently, the stay application is also dismissed.
(VINIT KUMAR MATHUR),J (SANDEEP MEHTA),J
/tarun goyal/ 1
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)