[2025:RJ-JD:52739]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 23462/2025 Satpal Singh Maan S/o Gurpartap Singh, Aged About 58 Years, R/o Ward No. 09, Near Baba Ramdev Mandir, Raisinghnagar, District Sri Ganganagar (Rajasthan).

----Petitioner Versus

1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary, Department Of Medical And Health, Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur (Rajasthan).

2. The Director (Non-Gazzetted), Medical And Health Services, Rajasthan, Govt. Of Rajasthan, Jaipur.

3. The Senior Medical Officer And In-Charge, Community Health Centre, Raisinghnagar, District Sri Ganganagar.

----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Ramchandra Bishnoi.

Mr. Amandeep Bishnoi.

Mr. Rahul Bishnoi.

For Respondent(s) :

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MUNNURI LAXMAN

Order

05/12/2025

1. Heard the matter on final disposal.

2. The present writ petition has been filed challenging the transfer order dated 15.01.2025 (Annex.-2) and consequential orders dated 20.11.2025 and 24.11.2025 (Annex.-6 and 7 respectively), wherein representation to reconsider the transfer order was also dismissed.

3. The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner was working as Senior Nursing Officer, CHC, Raisinghnagar, Anoopgarh, District-Shriganganagar and by the impugned order dated

15.01.2025, the petitioner was transfer to MDM Hospital, Jodhpur. The petitioner earlier approached this Court by filing S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.3062/2025, wherein this Court by order dated 05.02.2025 disposed of the writ petition directing the petitioner to file a representation for reconsideration in the light of law laid down by this Court in the case of Dr. (Smt.) Pushpa Mehta vs. Rajasthan Civil Services Appellate Tribunal & Ors.: 2000(2) WLC 725 and the respondents are directed to decide the same within a period of 30 days. Consequent to such a direction, the respondent-Authority disposed of the representation rejecting the reconsideration of the transfer holding that the principles enumerated in the case of Dr. (Smt.) Pushpa Mehta (supra), is not applicable to the petitioner and challenging the same, the present writ petition is filed.

4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is due to retire within two years and he also submits that the principles laid down in the case of Dr. (Smt.) Pushpa Mehta (supra), are relating to the persons, who are retired within two years. And the Authorities have wrongly held that the principles laid down in the case of Dr. (Smt.) Pushpa Mehta (supra), are not applicable in the case of the petitioner.

5. This Court has examined the principles laid down in the case of Dr. (Smt.) Pushpa Mehta (supra), wherein the fact disclosed that a transfer was made of a person, who was to retire within two years to accommodate a private respondent therein and the said order was challenged before the Tribunal and the Tribunal set aside the transfer order on the ground that transfer order is suffered from malafide and the said order of Tribunal was challenged by the private respondent therein before this Court, however, the State accepted the Tribunal's order. In the said circumstance, the case of Dr. (Smt.) Pushpa Mehta (supra), was disposed of dismissing the challenge made by the private respondent by confirming the order of Tribunal. The order in the case of Dr. (Smt.) Pushpa Mehta (supra), does not lay down any law that a person, who is going to retire within two years, not required to be transferred. What it has held that when the State accepted the order of the Tribunal, the private respondent cannot challenge the said order particularly when the Tribunal has set aside the order basing on the malafides. In the present case, it is not the case of the petitioner that the order of transfer is suffered from any malafides. The grievance is that he is due to retire within two years, as such his case required to be reconsidered and his transfer order required to be stayed, which is not in the principles laid down i