Back
2004 Supreme(Raj) 958
High Court Of Rajasthan
Judgename : Sunil Kumar Garg
Shanta Devi - Appellant
Versus
State of Rajasthan - Respondent
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2610 of 2004
Decided On : 10/01/2004
Mr. Mahesh Bora, for the Petitioners.
Mr. Shyam Ladhrecha, Additional Government Advocate, for the Respondents
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the transfer of low-paid employees, especially those belonging to scheduled caste and scheduled tribe categories, should be given sympathetic consideration, and their convenience should be considered in transfer matters.
Headnote:
Transfer - Hand Pump Mistri - [Article 226 of the Constitution of India, AIR 1997 SC 1347] - The court considered the case of two hand pump mistries who were declared surplus and proposed to be transferred to a distant district. The court found that the transfer was not justified, especially considering the hardship it would cause to the low-paid employees, and the special treatment recommended for scheduled caste and scheduled tribe employees in transfer matters. The court quashed the transfer orders and allowed the writ petitions.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners, hand pump mistries, were declared surplus and proposed to be transferred to a distant district. The petitioners challenged the transfer orders, arguing that the transfer would cause them great hardship.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the transfer orders were not justified, especially considering the hardship it would cause to the low-paid employees. The court also considered the special treatment recommended for scheduled caste and scheduled tribe employees in transfer matters.
Issues: The main issue was whether the proposed transfers of the petitioners could be sustained.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the transfer of the petitioners to a distant district was not justified, especially considering the hardship it would cause to the low-paid employees. The court also considered the special treatment recommended for scheduled caste and scheduled tribe employees in transfer matters.
Final Decision: The court quashed the transfer orders and allowed the writ petitions.
S.K. Garg, J.-Both the abovementioned writ petitions are being decided by this common order as in both of them common questions of law and facts are involved.
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2610/2004 Smt. Shanta Devi vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.
2. This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioner against the respondents on 23.06.2004 with the prayer that by an appropriate writ, order or direction, the order dated 25.06.2002 (Annexure-P/3) passed by the Respondent No. 2 Director, Panchatyati Raj Department, Government of Rajasthan, Jaipur by which four Hand Pump Mistri including the present petitioner were declared surplus from Panchayat Samiti, Banswara Headquarter Talwara and the petitioner was proposed to be transferred from Banswara District to Alwar District and further, the notice dated 28.05.2004 (Annexure-P/6) issued by the Respondent No. 4 Development Officer,
Panchayat Samiti, Banswara by which the petitioner was to be transferred to Alwar, be quashed and set aside.
3. The case of the petitioner as put forward by her in this writ petition is as follows:-A project was launched by the Central Government, namely “Swach Pariyojna” and the aim of that Project was to provide pure and clean drinking water to rural tribal people. The case of the petitioner is that under the said Project, many hand-pumps were dug and as per that Project, there were specific provisions for giving training of hand-pump mistri and for that, applications were invited and the petitioner submitted her application and she was selected and she had undergone six months ‘training of hand-pump mistri and after completion of training, through order Annexure-P/1 dated 30.06.1993 passed by the Respondent No. 4 Development Officer, Panchayat Samiti Banswara Hq. Talwara, the petitioner was given appointment on contract basis to repair ten hand-pump situated at Panchayat Abbapura and as per order Annexure-P/1, the petitioner was entitled to get Rs. 200/-per hand pump per year. The further case of the petitioner is that there were many hand pump mistries and since their services were not regularized, therefore, one Radhey Shyam Dhobi filed a writ petition before this Court seeking regularization of service as hand pump mistri and this Court directed that services of hand pump mistries be regularized and in pursuance of the order of this Court, the State Government passed order that services of those hand pump mistries appointed on contract basis, who had completed two years contract with the State Government, be regularized and thereafter, the Respondent No. 4 Development Officer, Panchayat Samiti, Banswara Hq. Talwara through order Annexure-P/2 dated 22.01.1996 regularized the services of those persons, who had completed two years service as hand pump mistries on contract basis and fixed in the pay scale of Rs. 750-940/-and in that order Annexure-P/2 the name of the petitioner appeared at Serial No. 22. Thereafter, the Respondent No. 2 Director Panchayati Raj Department, Government of Rajasthan, Jaipur passed order Annexure-P/3 dated 25.06.2002 by which four Hand Pump Mistri including the present petitioner were declared surplus from Panchayat Samiti, Banswara Headquarter Talwara and the petitioner was proposed to be transferred from Banswara District to Alwar District. Aggrieved from the said order Annexure-P/3 dated 25.06.2002, the petitioner filed a writ petition before this Court being S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.2601/2002 and that writ petition was disposed of by this Court through order dated 29.08.2002 (Annexure-P/7) in the following manner:-
“Heard learned Counsel. Learned Counsel for the respondents has frankly submitted that the petitioner is not going to transfer in future. In view of above statement, the writ petition is disposed of . However, in case, in future, if petitioner is to be transferred, prior notice of one month’s be given to the petitioner.”
The further case of the petitioner is
