MAJOR MAHIPAT GADHVI Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Rule. Mr.D.M.Devnani, learned Assistant Government Pleader, waives service of notice of Rule on behalf of respondent No.1. On 13.02.2014, this Court issued Notice for final disposal. In spite of issuance of Notice, respondents Nos.2 and 3 have not chosen to put in an appearance before the Court. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, and with the consent of the learned counsel for the respective parties, the petition is being heard and finally decided.

(2.) This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, has been preferred with a prayer to quash and set aside the order dated 24.06.2013, whereby the petitioner has been transferred from Ahmedabad to Rajkot, as well as the order dated 31.01.2014, passed by respondent No.1 pursuant to the order of this Court dated 17.01.2014, in Special Civil Application No.10626 of 2013, whereby the representations dated 22.05.2013 and 04.06.2013, made by the petitioner, have been rejected.

(3.) The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner is an exserviceman, who has taken premature retirement from the Indian Army. The service record of the petitioner in the Army, according to him, was neat and clean and he had served with courage and full dedication at various centers where he was posted. The petitioner has also received six medals for the meritorious services put in by him. After his premature retirement, the petitioner was appointed as District Sainik Welfare and Resettlement Officer, ClassI, at District Sainik Welfare and Resettlement Office, Ahmedabad, vide order dated 01.07.2006. The petitioner was confirmed on the said post vide order dated 28.03.2008, after successfully completing the period of probation. The petitioner has served the respondentDepartment for the last seven years and during this period, he has been posted at Ahmedabad. The petitioner is to superannuate from service on 31.07.2014. The wife of the petitioner is serving as Director, at the Directorate of Languages, Gandhinagar, under the State Government. Her post is a nontransferable one. The only child of the petitioner, a daughter, is studying in the 10th standard in Mount Carmel High School, at Gandhinagar. The petitioner is a resident of Gandhinagar and is serving at Ahmedabad. The petitioner was served with an order of transfer dated 24.06.2013, whereby he was transferred from Ahmedabad to Rajkot. By the said order, respondent No.2 was transferred from Rajkot to Surat and respondent No.3 was transferred from Surat to Ahmedabad, in place of the petitioner. According to the petitioner, respondents Nos.2 and 3 had requested the office of respondent No.1 for a mutual transfer from Rajkot to Surat and Surat to Rajkot and have joined at their places of posting. The petitioner, being an exserviceman and having served in a disciplined force, has also joined at his place of posting, at Rajkot. According to the petitioner, the order of transfer is contrary to the provisions of the policy framed by the State Government, which gives certain concessions to employees who are on the verge of retirement and whose spouses are serving at a particular place. The order of transfer was challenged by the petitioner by filing a petition, being Special Civil Application No.10626 of 2013. By an interim order dated 17.10.2013, passed in the said petition, this Court had directed respondent No.1 to decide the two representations made by the petitioner and to file an affidavitinreply. No reply was filed in the said petition and the representations were not decided. After hearing, the petition came to be disposed of, by the order dated 17.01.2014, directing respondent No.1 to consider the representations of the petitioner dated 22.05.2013 and 04.06.2013, in accordance with law, taking into consideration that the impending date of superannuation of the petitioner is 31.07.2014, and the aspect that the wife of the petitioner is serving at Gandhinagar on a nontransferable post. Pursuant to the passing of the above order, respondent No.1 has passed the impugned order dated 31.01.2014, whereby the representations of the petitioner have been rejected on the ground that the case of the petitioner for retention at Ahmedabad cannot be considered, as it is against the interest of the State Government and 'others'. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the petitioner has approached this Court by way of the present petition.