RAMESH CHARAN Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN AND ORS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned Counsel for the parties.

(2.) The petitioner preferred the writ petition No. 698/2006 challenging his transfer order dated 18.1.2006, which was stayed by this Court vide order dated 16.2.2006. Then, the petitioner again transferred vide order dated 15.7.2006 and that order was also stayed in writ petition No. 698/2006 vide order dated 21.7.2006. Thereafter, the order dated 21.7.2006 was confirmed by this Court vide order dated 6.12.2006.

(3.) Now the petitioner has been transferred by a fresh order from the office of the Panchayat Samiti, Pali to Treasury, Pali and in the same order, there is transfer order for about 40 persons alongwith the petitioner. The petitioner's contention is that one Sh. Narpat Singh Rajpurohit, who was posted in the Panchayat Samiti, Pali has been transferred to the office of the Tehsil Pali. The contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner vehemently is that in spite of the fact that the interim orders passed by this Court in SBCWP No. 698/2006 are in force, yet the petitioner has been transferred vide order dated 1.1.2009. It is also submitted that the petitioner has been discriminated as Sh. Narpat Singh Rajpurohit was transferred, but he has not been relieved, whereas the petitioner has been transferred and he has been relieved. Not only this, the petitioner has been transferred for nonexistent ground, which is clear from the office order dated 18.12.2009, wherein it has been stated that the State Government has abolished the post of Junior Accountant in the office of the Panchayat Samitis and, therefore, petitioner's transfer has been sought. This fact is absolutely wrong in view of the fact that Sh. Narpat Singh Rajpurohit is also Junior Accountant and he is yet working in the office of the Panchayat Samiti, Pali.