[2025:RJ-JD:17603]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3056/2025 Deepak Kumar Suwalka S/o Shri Gopal Lal, Aged About 39 Years, R/o 17-Block, Near Decent United Academy Sector 9, Hiran Magri, Udaipur, Rajasthan, Prsently Posted At A. En.

(Project) Avvnl, Udaipur (Rajasthan).

----Petitioner Versus

1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Secretary, Department Of Energy Government Of Rajasthan, Government Secretariat, Jaipur (Raj.).

2. Managing Director, Ajmer Vidhyut Vitran Nigam Limited, Vidhyut Bhawan, Panchsheel Nagar, Makadwali Road, Ajmer (Raj.).

3. Secretary (Administration), Ajmer Vidhut Vitran Nigam Limited, Vidhut Bhawan, Panchsheel Nagar, Makdwali Road, Ajmer (Raj.).

4. Executive Engineer (Project), Ajmer Vidhut Vitran Nigam Limited, Udaipur, Rajasthan.

----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Aslam Khan (through VC)

Mr. Vipin Mankad.

For Respondent(s) : Mr. Ravi Bhansali, Sr. Adv. assisted by Mr. Vipul Dharnia.

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN MONGA

Order (Oral)

04/04/2025

1. Petitioner herein, inter-alia, seeks quashing of an order dated 15.01.2025 (Annex.9), vide which he has been transferred from the Office of X.En. (Project), Udaipur to Office of A.En. (MT), Udaipur.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned transfer order is in violation of the transfer policy dated

13.12.2017 of Ajmer Vidhyut Vitran Nigam Limited and State Government Circular dated 18.07.2022, which stipulates that persons with disabilities should be posted at their preferred locations.

2.1 He further argues that the impugned order constitutes a gross violation of Section 20(5) of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016, and the Rules of 2017. Therefore, the impugned order dated 15.01.2025 be quashed and the respondents be directed to allow the petitioner to discharge his duties as A.En. (Project) at AVVNL, Udaipur.

3. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents submits that based on the availability of resources, the Nigam is required to make appropriate arrangements to ensure the smooth functioning of its operations. As regards the petitioner’s transfer, the same was carried out in the public interest owing to administrative exigencies.

3.1. He further contends that the transfer policy issued on 13.12.2017 serves only as a guideline and does not constitute a binding policy. Therefore, no employee can claim it as a right to be retained at a specific location. Hence, the petition deserves to be dismissed.

4. Having heard the rival contentions, it turns out that the petitioner did not present the correct facts of the case in his petition, which led to passing of interim order dated 05.02.2025, vide which the operation of impugned transfer order was stayed.

5. The situation appears to be rather otherwise, inasmuch as, not only there is no hardship as the petitioner has been transferred merely 500 mtrs. away from the current place of posting, but his wife is also stated to be in Government service, serving as J.En., in the same department and her office is also in the same very building, where the petitioner has to report for duty.

6. As regards, the violation of the transfer policy, the same is merely a guideline and directory in nature to be followed by the administrative authorities keeping in mind the inconveniences which the Government officials, upon transfer, have to suffer, in case any.

7. Present is not a case where there is any hardship or suffering warranting interference by this Court.

8. In the premise, no grounds to interfere.

9. Dismissed accordingly.

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

(ARUN MONGA),J 14-DhananjayS/Rmathur/-