2003 Supreme(Raj) 651
Rajasthan High Court
Honble SUNIL KUMAR GARG, J.
Amardeep Dube & Anr. - Appellant
Versus
State of Rajasthan & Anr. - Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3108 of 2003
Decided On : July 28, 2003
Rajesh Joshi, for Petitioners Sanjeev Johari, for Respondent No. 2 Anil Upadhyay, for Respondent No. 1
Headnote:Rajasthan Urban Improvement Trust Act, 1959, Secs. 8, 24 – Transfer of employees from UIT to Municipal Corporation – Transfer order not served yet relieved – Power of transfer – Held – Under Sec. 24-A, the State Govt. can transfer the employees of a trust from one Trust to another or to JDA but not to Municipal Corporation – The transfer is impermissible – Violation of Sec. 24-A – Cannot be sustained – Both transfer and relieving orders quashed and set aside. (Paras 12 to 14)
As per Section 24A of the Act of 1959, the employees of a Trust can be transferred by the State Government from one Trust to another or to the JDA, but it does not empower the State Government to transfer employees of the Trust to the Municipal Corporation and therefore, in view of thus, the impugned transfer order dated 3.7.2003 issued by the Dy.Secretary, Local Self Government Department, Jaipur transferring the petitioners from Trust to Municipal Corporation, which is not permissible under the provisions of Section 24A of the Act of 1959 is wholly illegal and in violation of the provisions of Section 24A of the Act of 1959 and thus, it cannot be sustained. (Para 12)
(2). The case of the petitioners as put forward by them in this writ petition is as follows:-
The case of the petitioners is that under the provisions of Section 8 of the Rajasthan Urban Improvement Trust Act, 1959 (hereinafter referred to as ``the Act of 1959), the Urban Improvement Trust (hereinafter referred to as ``the Trust) was incorporated as a Trust in which the petitioners were appointed on the post of LDCs on daily wages basis by the Secretary of the Trust. The petitioner No. 1 Amardeep Dube was appointed on 1.4.1983 and the petitioner No. 2 Kailash Joshi was appointed on 20.10.1990 and thereafter, their services were regularised.
The further case of the petitioners is that under the provisions of the Act of 1959, the Trusts in various districts were constituted and they are autonomous bodies.
In the Act of 1959, Section 24A was added by the Act No. 16 of 1992 published in Rajasthan Gazette Extraordinary 4 (Ka) dated 5.5.1992 and the same reads as under:-
``24A Power of transfer.-The officers and employees of a Trust may be transferred, by the State Government from one Trust to another or to the JDA in accordance with the rules made under section 74.
Thus, a bare perusal of Section 24A of the Act of 1959 clearly reveals that officers and employees of a Trust may be transferred by the State Government from one Trust to another or to the JDA in accordance with the rules made under section 74.
The further case of the petitioners is that in the State of Rajasthan, there are two developing wings of different cities, one is called Urban Development and Housing Department and another is called as Local Self Government Department. In the first category, UIT and Housing Board are governed whereas in the second category, only Municipalities are governed in Local Self Government Department.
The further case of the petitioners is that through impugned transfer order dated 3.7.2003, which was not served upon the petitioners, they were transferred from Urban Improvement Trust, Jodhpur to Municipal Corporation, Jodhpur and Jaitaran and in pursuance of that transfer order dated 3.7.2003, they were relieved through order Annex. 2 dated 4.7.2003 and according to the petitioners, the impugned transfer order dated 3.7.2003 is bad in law as it was passed in violation of Section 24A of the of 1959, just quoted above, inasmuch as, the petitioners could have been transferred in any of the Trust through out Rajasthan, but they could not have been transferred in the Municipal Corporation of the State of Rajasthan and thus, the impugned transfer order dated 3.7.2003 is wholly illegal and it is liable to be quashed and set aside and consequently, the order Annex. 2 dated 4.7.2003 relieving the petitioners in pursuance of impugned transfer order dated 3.7.2003 is also liable to be quashed and set aside. Hence, this writ petition with the prayer as stated above.
A reply to the writ petition was filed by the respondents and their case is that the respondents have power to make transfer and as the impugned transfer order dated 3.7.2003 was passed in administrative exigencies, therefore, it was rightly passed and the petitioners were rightly relieved through order Annex. 2 dated 4.7.2003 in