SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(Raj) 1183

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR
MR. JUSTICE ARUN MONGA, J
Jivraj Kaswan S/o Mamraj Kaswan - Appellant
Versus
State Of Rajasthan - Respondent
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1193/2025
Decided On : 18-02-2025

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Mr. Manish Patel, Mr. Tanwar Singh, Mr. S.K. Saini, Mr. V.S. Bhawla, Mr. Mukesh Vyas, Mr. Shyam Vyas, Mr. Vikas Bijarnia, Ms. Sangeeta Mittal, Mr. Love Jain, Mr. Pawan Singh, Mr. Yashpal Khileree, Mr. Ramesh Kumar, Mr. Madhav Vyas, Mr. Priyanshu Gopa and Mr. O.P. Sangwa.
For the Respondent: Mr. Pawan Bharti for Mr. I.R. Choudhary, AAG Mr. Tanuj Jain for Mr. Mukesh Dave, A.G.C.

Contractual employees are protected from transfers under Rule 16(ii) of the Rajasthan Contractual Hiring to Civil Posts Rules, 2022, ensuring their stability and addressing financial hardships.

Headnote:

(A) Rajasthan Contractual Hiring to Civil Posts Rules, 2022 - Rule 16(ii) - Transfer orders of contractual employees challenged - Court finds transfers violate statutory provisions ensuring stability for contractual employees - Transfers deemed mechanical and lacking consideration of individual hardships - Court emphasizes the need for administrative propriety in such actions. (Paras 1, 3, 6, 12)

(B) The court highlights that the legislative intent behind Rule 16(ii) is to provide contractual employees immunity from transfers, recognizing their lower pay and financial hardships. (Paras 8, 9)

(C) Administrative efficiency must be balanced with the rights of contractual employees, as transfers could adversely affect their morale and productivity. (Paras 11)

Facts of the case:
Petitioners, contractual employees in various state departments, challenge their transfer orders as violating Rule 16(ii) of the Rules of 2022, claiming financial inability to relocate. (Paras 2, 3)

Findings of Court:
Transfer orders violate statutory provisions, and the court sets aside the transfers while allowing fresh orders that do not change employees' original locations. (Paras 12, 13)

Issues: Whether the transfer orders comply with Rule 16(ii) and the administrative propriety in handling contractual employees' transfers. (Paras 1, 4)

Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the clear language of Rule 16(ii) prohibits transfers, ensuring stability for contractual employees and recognizing their financial limitations. (Paras 7, 10)

Result: Transfer orders set aside.

Order :

1. In this bunch of petitions under challenge are respective transfer orders of the contractual employees (petitioners). Assertion is that not only their transfer is sheer mechanical exercise of mind, but also in blatant non-compliance of applicable Rules. Facts of individual cases are thus not being gone into, as what is assailed herein simplicitor is the procedure, legality and the administrative propriety of the transfers/postings of the petitioners. Vide this common order, above tilted petition along with the ones recited in Appendix (A) are being disposed of as similar issues are involved therein.

2. Concededly, all the petitioners are contractual employees working in different Departments i.e. Medical & Health/ Panchayati Raj and Rural Development of the State of Rajasthan. They have been appointed under the Rajasthan Contractual Hiring to Civil Posts Rules , 2022 (for short, 'the Rules of 2022').

3. Common grievance being, that by virtue of transfers carried out by the respondents, the petitioners, being contractual on jobs, are very low-paid employees vis-à-vis their counter parts in regular employment. They have been dislodged, contrary to the provisions of Rule 16(ii) of the Rules of 2022.

4. They also assert that impugned transfer orders have been passed in complete short shrift of even the most deserving cases of individual extreme hardships.

4.1. Averment also is that the transfer exercise has been carried out in the most mechanical manner, which on the face of it, though may not be punitive, but unwittingly many of the employees would have to relocate themselves to very far off places. Notwithstanding, that they are on the bottom of the pyramid of the human resource deployed by the respondents. Thus, a contractual class-III or IV, as the case may be, is being paid lesser that even the lowest pay-band, i.e. even less than the regular pay of a Class-III/IV employee, can financially ill afford to relocate his family and/or make alternative housing arrangements for them, besides other logistical hurdles requiring extra expenditure to resolve.

5. In the aforesaid backdrop, I have heard the rival contentions and perused all the case files.

6. First and foremost, the Rule 16 of the Rules of 2022, which is the subject matter of interpretation herein, may be seen. For ready reference, the same is reproduced hereinbelow:-

"16. General conditions, ethics and observance.- The person hired on contract shall.-

(i) observe general satisfactory conduct and ethics at the level expected under orders/rules and instructions issued by higher authorities;

(ii) not be transferred from one place to any other place;

(iii) not accept any full time/part time employment or engage in any other work, business occupation or pursue any study course without prior approval of the Government;

(iv) comply the instructions regarding uniform/livery, if issued, for which an amount fixed by the Administrative Department with the concurrence of the Finance Department shall be paid."

7. A perusal of the above leaves no manner of doubt that it states in as many words and, in no uncertain terms, in very unambiguous language that a persons hired on contract "shall" not be transferred from one place to any other place. The words used in the Rule need no further elaboration as they are self- explanatory. A bare reading of it, unequivocally envisages statutory stability to a contractual employee to serve at his current contractual place and an immunity from transfer. Reasons are not far to seek. Let us see how.

8. The benevolence (read- inability of state to accord regular pay scale) of providing such a statutory assurance from relocation from one place to another place is the meagre consolidated amount, which has been fixed as the monthly remuneration for a contractual employee. It is but natural that being paid much less than his counter part who is in the regular pay band, the contractual officials serving for the State are financially not in a position to afford

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top