[2025:RJ-JD:18394]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3057/2025 Vinay Gupta S/o Shri Tara Chand Gupta, Aged About 48 Years, R/o 50-D-Road, New Keshav Nagar, Udaipur, Rajasthan, Presently 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.10), vide which he has been transferred from the Office of A.En. (Project), Udaipur to Office of A.En.

(O&M), Dovda, which is stated to be about 150 kms. away.

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 transpires that the petitioner was transferred after having served on the current post for more than two and a half years.

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 being 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

15-SP/skm/-