HEERA LAL MEENA Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Though the matter has been listed for orders in the 'notice awaited' category; however, having regard to the circumstances of the case, particularly in view of the fact that the order impugned is a transfer order made as back as on 29.06.2007 and the appeal filed by the petitioner was also dismissed by the Tribunal on 09.07.2007 and there is no interim order passed in this case yet, learned Counsel for the petitioner has been heard on merits before considering necessity of issuing fresh notices.

(2.) Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner has contended that the petitioner is at the verge of his retirement inasmuch as he is going to retire on 31.01.2008 and yet has been transferred by the impugned order dated 29.06.2007; and the Tribunal has been in error in rejecting the appeal filed by the petitioner on entirely irrelevant considerations. Learned Counsel has relied upon the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Dr. (Smt.) Pushpa Mehta v. Rajasthan Civil Services Appellate Tribunal,2001 1 RLR 398.

(3.) So far the argument regarding approaching date of retirement with reference to the decision of this Court in Dr. (Smt.) Pushpa Mehta's case is concerned, it may be noticed that the appellant in the said case, Dr. (Smt.) Pushpa Mehta, working as professor in the Department of Micro-Biology was transferred from Kota to Udaipur and the second respondent Dr. (Smt.) Shanta Dubey was transferred in her place from Udaipur to Kota. The second respondent challenged the order of transfer before the Rajasthan Civil Services Appellate Tribunal on the ground that she was on the verge of retirement; that she was suffering from cancer; that her husband had expired about a year back; and that her younger son was studying at Udaipur. The Tribunal found that there was no administrative reason to transfer Dr. Dubey from Udaipur to Kota except to accommodate Dr. Mehta and, thus, set aside the order of transfer. The Hon'ble Division Bench noticed that the State chose not to challenge the order made by the Tribunal and the same was challenged only by Dr. Mehta by way of writ petition that was rejected by the learned Single Judge. In the back drop of such fact situation, Hon'ble Division Bench considered the submissions made on behalf of the writ petitioner-appellant about the limited grounds on which order of transfer could be challenged and the Hon'ble Division Bench noticed the decisions of Hon'ble Supreme Court cited before it and observed,-