Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
Arun Bhansali, J.
Ramesh Kumar Prajapat – Appellant
Versus
State of Rajasthan & Ors. – Respondent
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1917/2023
Decided On : 06-02-2023
TRANSFER OF GRAM VIKAS ADHIKARI - RAJASTHAN PANCHAYATI RAJ ACT, 1994 - SECTION 89 (8) (II), 89 (8-A) - TRANSFER OF GRAM VIKAS ADHIKARI FROM ONE GRAM PANCHAYAT TO ANOTHER - VALIDITY - CONSULTATION WITH PRADHAN OF PANCHAYAT SAMITI - REQUIREMENT - STATE GOVERNMENT'S POWER TO TRANSFER - SCOPE.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a Gram Vikas Adhikari, challenged his transfer from Gram Panchayat, Marole to Gram Panchayat, Thandi Beri, arguing that the transfer order violated the provisions of Section 89 (8) (ii) of the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Act, 1994, as no consultation was held with the Pradhan of the Panchayat Samiti before the transfer.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the transfer order was valid and did not violate the provisions of Section 89 (8) (ii) of the Act, 1994, as the transfer was ordered by the State Government under Section 89 (8-A) of the Act, which empowers the State Government to transfer any member of the service from one place of posting to another, notwithstanding the provisions of Section 89 (8).
Issues: 1. Whether the transfer order violated the provisions of Section 89 (8) (ii) of the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Act, 1994, as no consultation was held with the Pradhan of the Panchayat Samiti before the transfer. 2. Whether the State Government had the power to transfer the petitioner under Section 89 (8-A) of the Act, 1994.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. Section 89 (8) (ii) of the Act, 1994 requires consultation with the Pradhan of the Panchayat Samiti before transferring a Gram Vikas Adhikari. 2. However, Section 89 (8-A) of the Act, 1994 empowers the State Government to transfer any member of the service from one place of posting to another, notwithstanding the provisions of Section 89 (8). 3. The transfer order in the present case was issued by the State Government under Section 89 (8-A) of the Act, 1994, and therefore, the requirement of consultation with the Pradhan of the Panchayat Samiti under Section 89 (8) (ii) was not applicable.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the petition, holding that the transfer order was valid and did not violate the provisions of Section 89 (8) (ii) of the Act, 1994.
ORDER
1. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner aggrieved against the order dated 11/1/2023 (Annex.P/5), whereby, the petitioner, a Gram Vikas Adhikari, has been transferred to Gram Panchayat, Thandi Beri, Panchayat Samiti - Pindwara, District Sirohi, order dated 13/1/2023 issued by the Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad, Sirohi, which has been passed pursuant to the order dated 11/1/2023 and office order dated 17/1/2023 (Annex.P/8), whereby, the petitioner has been relieved from the office of Panchayat Samiti, Revdar, District Sirohi for joining at Gram Panchayat, Thandi Beri.
2. It is inter alia indicated in the petition that initially by order dated 8/4/2021 (Annex.P/1), the petitioner had been transferred from Gram Panchayat, Vasan, Panchayat Samiti - Abu Road, Sirohi. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner filed CWP No. 9495/2021, wherein, on 28/7/2021, while issuing notice, interim order was granted by a coordinate Bench of this Court staying the operation of the order dated 8/4/2021 and relieving order dated 20/7/2021. Whereafter, by order dated 21/6/2022 (Annex.P/3) the petitioner was given additional charge of Gram Panchayat, Marole and on 14/11/2022, the charge of Gram Panchayat, Vasan was directed to be handed over to one Doongar Singh vide Annex.P/4. Whereafter, impugned order dated 11/1/2023 (Annex.P/5) was issued ordering for transfer of the petitioner.
3. It is submitted that as already an interim order granted in CWP No. 9495/2021 was in currency against the transfer of the petitioner, the order impugned could not have been issued by the respondents.
4. Further submissions have been made that the petitioner has been shown to have been transferred from Gram Panchayat, Marole, Panchayat Samiti - Revdar to Gram Panchayat, Thandi Beri, whereas, the petitioner only had the additional charge of Panchayat Samiti, Marole and, therefore, the impugned order on that count also is bad.
5. It was emphasized that the order dated 11/1/2023 was issued by the Additional Commissioner and Joint Secretary, Rural Development and Panchayati Raj Department requiring the Chief Executive Officer to pass order as per law and as the provisions of Section 89 (8) (ii) of the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 (’the Act, 1994’) have not been followed inasmuch as no consultation with the Pradhan of the Panchayat Samiti was held before passing the order impugned, therefore, the order impugned deserves to be quashed and set aside.
6. Learned counsel for the State made submissions that the pleas raised by the petitioner has no basis inasmuch as the Court in CWP No. 9495/2021 had stayed the operation of the order as it was prima facie found that the Director, Panchayati Raj, who had issued the order dated 8/4/2021, had no jurisdiction and, therefore, the present order, which has been passed by the State Government cannot be questioned on that count.
7. Further submissions have been made that the order dated 11/1/2023 was issued by the State Government, which is governed by the provisions of Section 89 (8-A) of the Act, 1994, wherein, no such consultation is required.
8. Further submissions have been made that as by order dated 4/11/2022 (Annex.P/4), the charge of Gram Panchayat, Vasan was already taken from the petitioner and petitioner was holding the charge of Gram Panchayat, Marole only, indicating his transfer from Gram Panchayat, Marole to Gram Panchayat Thandi Beri cannot be faulted. It was prayed that the petition be dismissed.
9. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and have perused the material available on record.
10. The order dated 8/4/2021 which came to be stayed in CWP No. 9495/2021 was passed by the Director, Rural Development and Panchayati Raj Department, therefore, a coordinate bench of this Court on 28/7/2021 stayed the operation of the said order noticing the contention that the Director had no jurisdiction to transfer the petitioner.
11. Passing of the said order had nothing to do with t
The State Government has the power to transfer any member of the service from one place of posting to another, notwithstanding the provisions of Section 89 (8) of the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Act, 19....
Section 89(8)(ii) of the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 mandates consultation before employee transfers, making such transfers without consultation invalid.
The authority of the District Establishment Committee to make transfer decisions and the jurisdiction of the Chief Executive Officer of the Zila Parishad to pass transfer orders.
Transfer orders must specify duty locations and consult local governing bodies per statutory requirements, fostering transparency in governance.
The court ruled that a transfer order issued by an unauthorized authority during a ban period is invalid, emphasizing the need for proper legal grounds for such transfers.
The central legal point established in the judgment is the permissibility of transferring the petitioner under Rule 6(7) of the Rules of 2011 and the absence of a mandatory requirement for approval f....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
