VASUDEV SHARMA Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY way of this petition the petitioner has prayed to direct the respondent No. 2 to transfer the petitioner from Rajasthan Rajya Vidyut Prasaran Nigam Limited, Jaipur to Jodhpur Vidyut Vitaran Nigam Limited, Jodhpur (for short `JVVNL').

(2.) BRIEF facts of the case according to the petitioner are that he had initially entered in the services of Rajasthan State Electricity Board (for short `the RSEB') on 14.3.1977 on the post of Junior Engineer (I). He was further promoted to the post of Assistant Engineer on 3.3.1982 in the RSEB. The State Government decided to abolish RSEB and it divided into 5 Public Sector Companies u/S. 14 of the Rajasthan Power Sector Reforms Act, 1999 (for short `the Act of 1999. The division of erstwhile RSEB into 5 companies took place after issuance of the Rajasthan Power Sector Reforms Transfer Scheme, 2000 (for short `the Scheme 2000') and the aforesaid scheme was published in the gazette notification on 19.7.2000. As per Rule 6 of the Scheme of 2000, the personnel (employees) classified in various schedules were transferred to newly formed companies on account of various offices working under the heads and jurisdiction given in the schedule. On 19.7.2000 he was working as Assistant Engineer (O & M) at Ladnu and his office came under the jurisdiction of JVVNL (Jodhpur Discom). A Representation Committee was constituted for transfer and absorption of the person working in the erstwhile RSEB. The concerned employees submitted representations to the Coordinator of the said Committee. After receipt of the representation of the concerned employee, the Head of the Department was to send his recommendation within 45 days and thereafter, Committee was to send the recommendation within 90 days of the issuance of the order. Petitioner submitted his representation on 4.8.2000 and opted for two companies i.e. Rajasthan Rajya Vidyut Prasaran Nigam Limited, Jaipur (for short `RRVPNL') and Jaipur Vidyut Vitaran Nigam Ltd., Jaipur (for short `JVVNL'). At the time giving of representation, he was not aware about future aspects and his chances of promotion. Before consideration of his representation, he submitted an application on 11.11.2000 before respondent No. 2. However, Government (Energy Department) issued notification dated 21.12.2000 wherein transfer ans posting orders of different A.Ens were ordered with immediate effect. RRVPNL, Jaipur issued orders dt. 27.12.2000 in compliance thereof and he was transferred as A.En. (O & M), Ladnu to Assistant Engineer, Renwal. On 1.1.2001 he was relieved from Ladnu in the Jodhpur Discom. Immediately after his relieving, he submitted a representation to respondent No. 3 on 4.1.2001 in which he requested for continuation at Jodhpur. A copy of the application was also sent to the Coordinator. Representation Committee for cancellation of earlier option given by him but even after waiting for sufficient time, no order for cancellation of option was passed and the petitioner was not having any choice except to join at his new place of posting on 25.1.2001. He further stated that one person namely Mr. Ram Pratap Choudhary who was working as Assistant Engineer (E & M) had been absorbed and transferred to Jaipur Discom from Jodhpur Discom and his name is shown at S.No. 2 in the said list. On 3.3.2001 the State government issued another notification wherein Mr. Ram Pratap Choudhary has been allowed to continue at JVVNL, Jodhpur in stead of JVVNL, Jaipur. Ultimately, he sent a notice for demand of justice but with no result.

(3.) A bare perusal of the facts of the aforesaid case reveals that the services of one Mr. Ram Pratap Choudhary, who was working as A.En. (E & M) had been absorbed and transferred to Jaipur Discom from Jodhpur Discom but the present petitioner has been deprived from the aforesaid benefit. In the scheme framed by the Government, nowhere puts a restriction for reconsideration of the cases of employees, if they wanted to change from one company to another company. In absence of any specific power to give second option or rethinking on the part of the employee, cannot deprive the petitioner for change of company. The fact clearly reveal that the petitioner has requested vide his application dated 11.11.2000 that he did not want to go to RRVVNL, Jaipur and he wanted to continue in Jodhpur Discom. In spite of request being made by the petitioner before issuance of order dated 21.11.2001 and 27.11.2001, the respondent did not consider request of the petitioner without any basis. The petitioner reiterated his request by writing letters/representations dated 4.1.2000 and 6.1.2001, yet the respondents did not pass order as was required under the Scheme. In this case it seems that the respondents have adopted pick and choose policy and they have given discriminatory treatment to the petitioner without considering his request for cancellation of the option given at initial stage. The other employees namely; Ram Pratap Choudhary has been shown favourable treatment and he has been allowed to continue at Jodhpur discom and his order of posting in Jodhpur Discom has been canceled but petitioner has been deprived of the same. It clearly goes to show that the petitioner has suffered on account of non-acceptance of his option to join in Jodhpur Discom. The chances of the promotion of the petitioner are better and bright in Jodhpur as is juniors have been promoted from the post of Assistant Engineers to Executive Engineers.