LAWS(RAJ)-2018-2-230

VIKRAM SINGH CHOUHAN S/O SHRI HAMIR SINGH CHOUHAN Vs. THE RAJASTHAN STATE CONSUMER DISPUTE REDRESSAL COMMISSION, RAJASTHAN, JAIPUR THROUGH ITS SECRETARY

Decided On February 05, 2018
Vikram Singh Chouhan S/O Shri Hamir Singh Chouhan Appellant
V/S
The Rajasthan State Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission, Rajasthan, Jaipur Through Its Secretary Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has preferred this writ petition under for the following reliefs:-

(2.) The facts of the case in brief is that the petitioner was appointed as LDC after undergoing selection process on 23.8.2003. He was transferred by District and Sessions Judge, Sikar vide order dated 17.11.2004 to Jodhpur Judgeship. The petitioner was sent on deputation as LDC in District Consumer Forum-I, Jodhpur vide order dated 21.8.2013 (Annex.3). The petitioner was asked about his willingness for absorption in State Commission/District Consumer Forum. Vide his application dated 07.12.2016 (Annex.6) the petitioner submitted his willingness for absorption with State Commission/District Consumer Forum. The application 07.12.2016 (Annex.6) was withdrawn by the petitioner vide another application dated 22.2.2017 (Annex.7). The Authorities meanwhile issued a letter dated 03.4.2017 (Annex.8) to District and Sessions Judge, Metropolitan, Jodhpur under the subject "Regarding deputation of staff of Subordinate Courts" by which the deputationists were called back and in pursuance of letter dated 03.4.2017 the petitioner was asked to be relieved for joining in parent department. Vide letter dated 06.4.2017 the petitioner was to be relieved for joining in parent department. Petitioner again vide representation dated 19.6.2017 (Annex.11) requested to relieve him for joining in the parent department. The petitioner thereafter was absorbed vide order dated 10.8.2017 (Annex.12) with the State/District Consumer Forum. Hence, being aggrieved by order dated 10.8.2017, the petitioner is filing this writ petition.

(3.) Counsel for the petitioner states that the petitioner was and is at all willing to continue on deputation with the District Consumer Forum, as such, the order impugned dated 10.8.2017 absorbing his services in State Commission/District Consumer Forum is bad. He has relied upon decision of this Court dated 17.1.2007 rendered in the case of Vijay Saraswat v. State of Rajasthan and Ors., reported in WLC 2007(3) page 251 , which reads as follows:-