CHANDAN MAL SAIN Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS intra -court appeal is directed against the order dated 05.03.2014, as passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1658/2014, which filed by the respondent No. 4 of this appeal against the transfer order dated 01.03.2014. The learned counsel Mr. L.S. Jodha, who had appeared for the writ -petitioner (respondent No. 4 in this appeal), has put in appearance in caveat. Though in this matter, the other respondents are not represented but the same had been the position before the learned Single Judge too, as the writ petition was decided on the first date of hearing without notice to any other respondent. Looking to the subject matter and overall circumstances, we have considered it just and proper to dispose of this intra -court appeal too at this stage itself, without notice to any other respondent.

(2.) THE relevant background aspects of the matter are that the contesting persons, i.e., the present appellant Shri Chandan Mal Sain (respondent No. 4 in CWP No. 1658/2014) and the present respondent No. 4 Shri Radhey Shyam Meena (writ -petitioner in CWP No. 1658/2014), are working on the post Nayab Tehsildar. Before passing of the impugned transfer order, which forms the subject matter of this appeal, the appellant Shri Chandan Mal Sain was posted as the Nayab Tehsildar, Tehsil Sangria, District Hanumangarh, whereas the respondent No. 4 Shri Radhey Shaym Meena was posted as Nayab Tehsildar, Hindumalkot, District Sriganganagar. By the impugned transfer order dated 01.03.2014, the appellant Shri Chandan Mal Sain was transferred as Nayab Tehsildar, Hindumalkot in place of respondent No. 4, who was, by the same order, transferred on the vacant post of Nayab Tehsildar, Suratgarh, District Sriganganagar.

(3.) IT appears from the impugned order dated 05.03.2014 that the learned Single Judge proceeded to examine two aspects of the matter. One had been the submissions on the part of the writ -petitioner that he was at the verge of the retirement and hence, the employers were was not justified in transferring him to another place of posting. A Division Bench decision of this Court in the case of Dr. Pushpa Mehta vs State of Rajasthan : 2000 (1) RLW 233 was referred in that regard. The second aspect that was placed before the learned Single Judge and was duly considered had been that the respondent No. 4 of the writ petition i.e., the present appellant, had in fact joined at the transferred place; meaning thereby, it was submitted on the part of the present appellant before the learned Single Judge that he had already joined at Hindumalkot, District Sriganganagar in place of the writ -petitioner. 6. As regards the contention on the part of the writ -petitioner that he was required to be retained on the present place of posting in view of his approaching date of retirement, the learned Single Judge considered it proper to dispose of the writ petition while giving a liberty to the writ -petitioner to file a representation before the competent authority within 15 days alongwith the copy of judgment in Dr. Pushpa Mehta's case (supra). The learned Single Judge also directed the competent authority to decide the said representation within a period of one month, keeping in view the decision of this Court. 7. As regards joining of the present appellant in place of the writ -petitioner, the learned Single Judge considered it proper to stay the effect and operation of the impugned transfer order dated 01.03.2014 and directed that the writ -petitioner shall be permitted to work at the place where he was working prior to the passing of impugned transfer order. However, the learned Single Judge also observed that at the time of deciding the representation of the writ - petitioner, the respondents would be expected to consider the fact of joining of the present appellant on the place of posting of the writ - petitioner. 8. The impugned order dated 05.03.2014, in its entirety, reads as under: -