The court emphasized that transfer orders must comply with jurisdictional authority and procedural rules, reaffirming that employees do not have an inherent right to remain at a specific location.

ORDER :

(ARUN MONGA, J.)

1. Grievance of the petitioner stems from an impugned transfer order dated 20.02.2024 (Annex.1), vide which, he was transferred from the Head Office Bhakharwali, Office of Assistant Director Agriculture (Extension), District Hanumangarh to Head Office 6-8 L.L.W., Office of Assistant Director Agriculture (Extension), District Hanumangarh.

2. During the pendency of writ proceedings, a co-ordinate bench of this Court passed an interim order dated 07.03.2024 staying the implementation of the transfer order. Same being apposite, is reproduced herein below:

1. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner, who is an Agriculture Supervisor, has been sought to be transferred from Head Office Bhakrawali, Office of Assistant Director, Agriculture (Extension), Hanumangarh to Head Office 6-8 LLW, Office of Assistant Director, Agriculture (Extension), Hanumangarh vide order dated 20.02.2024. Counsel submits that the impugned order is in contravention to Rule 8 of the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj (Transferred Activities) Rules, 2011 as the Agriculture Commissioner does not have authority/jurisdiction to pass an order of transfer of an employee within the same Panchayat Samiti or same District or even from one District to another. The order impugned reflects that the same has neither been passed by the Administrative and Establishment Committee of the Panchayat Samiti nor by the District Establishment Committee of the Zila Parishad. Further, the order impugned clearly reflects that no consent of the Panchayati Raj Department has also been taken.

2. In view of the submission made, Admit. Issue notice.

Notices need not be issued to respondent Nos. 1 to 4 as they are already represented by the counsel.

Issue notice to respondent No.5 only.

Notices be filed in two sets within a period of one week. One set of notices be given ‘dasti’ to learned counsel for the petitioner for service through registered post acknowledgment due. Notices be made returnable on 04.04.2024.

Postal receipts of the ‘dasti’ notices be filed within a period of one week from the date of receipt of ‘dasti’ notices.

3. The effect and operation of order impugned dated 20.02.2024 shall remain stayed till the next date qua the present petitioner.

4. If the notices/ postal receipts as directed, are not filed within the stipulated period, the present interim order shall cease to operate.”

3. Aforesaid stay order continues to subsist in favor of the petitioner till date.

4. Transfers are a standard and integral aspect of government employment conditions. Employees do not possess an inherent right to demand continuation of their service at a specific location.

5. This Court ordinarily refrains from intervening in transfer matters, acknowledging administrative needs for employees to fulfill their duties at assigned locations.

6. In the instant case, given the duration of the interim protection granted by this court, its utility appears to have waned over time.

7. Be that as it may, the interim order is made absolute, but with liberty to the respondents to pass fresh orders in future in accordance with law, if necessary due to administrative exigency.

8. In the parting, it is made clear that granting liberty to pass fresh orders is not to be construed as a direction of this Court to necessarily pass fresh orders in case there is no such requirement otherwise.

9. Disposed of as above.

10. Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of.