Back
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN - PRINCIPAL SEAT AT JODHP
Dinesh Mehta, J
Shyamdeen Bhutto – Appellant
Versus
State Of Rajasthan – Respondent
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 10856/2021
For the Appellants/Petitioners: C. S. Kotwani
For the Respondents: D. S. Jasol
Transfer of a government employee near retirement is generally avoided to allow peaceful planning, but such a restriction is not absolute if the transfer is in the public interest or serves the employee's convenience, such as posting them to their native place of residence.
Headnote:The petitioner, a Ranger Grade-II, challenged a relieving order dated 05.08.2021 directing him to join the office of Chief Conservator of Forest, Bikaner, contending that as he is due to retire on 31.03.2022, the transfer violates the principle that employees should not be transferred within two years of retirement to allow peaceful retirement planning. The respondents contended that the petitioner is a permanent resident of Bikaner, a disciplinary enquiry is pending against him there, and the transfer serves both administrative exigency and the petitioner's convenience. The court examined whether the transfer was arbitrary or malafide and how the principle in Dr. Pushpa Mehta Vs. RCSAT & Ors. applies. The court reasoned that the policy of avoiding transfers near retirement is intended to ensure employees can plan their post-retirement life peacefully. In this case, since the petitioner is being transferred to his native place of residence, the transfer actually facilitates his retirement planning and convenience, falling within the exceptions where minimum inconvenience is caused to the employee. The writ petition is thus, dismissed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. challenge to transfer order based on proximity to retirement date. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9) |
| 2. assessment of transfer legality regarding native residence and pending enquiry. (Para 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16) |
| 3. application of the 'peaceful retirement' principle to native place transfers. (Para 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23) |
| 4. dismissal of petition as transfer does not cause undue hardship. (Para 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29) |
Judgment
1. Petitioner is working as Ranger Grade-II and had been discharging his duties at Biradwal, when the order dated 05.08.2021 came to be passed.
2. The petitioner has challenged the aforesaid order whereby he has been relieved from Biradwal (District Sri Ganganagar) to join in the office of Chief Conservator of Forest, Bikaner.
3. Mr. Kotwani, learned counsel for the petitioner, at the outset submitted that the petitioner is going to retire on 31.03.2022 and less than 6 months of his service tenure is remaining, therefore, his transfer from Biradwal to Bikaner is contrary to judgment of this Court rendered in the case of Dr. Pushpa Mehta Vs. RCSAT & Ors. reported in RLW 2000 (1) (Raj.) 233.
4. The respondents have entered a caveat and have filed a reply to the writ petition. It has been indicated therein that a disciplinary enquiry is pending against the petitioner at Bikaner and that the petitioner is a permanent resident of Bikaner; it is also stated that the petitioner has been asking for permission to leave the headquarters on number of occasions while also seeking leave to go to Bikaner. It was thus, deemed appropriate to transfer the petitioner.
5. While maintaining that transfer is an incidence of service, Mr. Jasol submitted that on the contrary, the transfer under challenge would serve the cause of the petitioner apart from meeting the administrative exigency of the State inasmuch as the post at Bikaner was lying vacant.
6. Learned counsel invited Court’s attention towards various documents filed along with the reply, to show that petitioner is permanent resident of Bikaner; his residential house is situated in Bikaner and he goes/visits to Bikaner very frequently.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioner in rejoinder argued that impugned transfer order has been passed with malafide intention, which is evident from the fact that respondents have appeared in caveat.
8. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that in light of Dr. Pushpa Mehta’s case (supra), no Government employee can be transferred within a period of two years of his/her retirement.
9. Learned counsel for the petitioner also highlighted that this Court has granted interim orders in many cases in light of the judgment of Dr. Pushpa Mehta (supra) and thus, interim order be passed in the present case also, to maintain parity.
10. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record.
11. A perusal of the cause title itself shows that the petitioner is a resident of 5E-256, J.N.V. Colony, Bikaner, though he is presently posted at Biradwal.
12. On perusal of documents filed along with the reply, it is clear that on number of occasions, the petitioner has sought permission to leave headquarters from the competent authority of the respondents. Though it is not on record that after leaving the headquarters each time the petitioner has gone to Bikaner, but in any case, the petitioner has left headquarters on a number of times.
13. It is also not in dispute that the petitioner is facing a disciplinary enquiry at Bikaner.
14. It is to be noted that the petitioner has challenged order dated 05.08.2021 (Annex.13) issued by the Deputy Conservator of Forest, Sri Gangangar, calling it to be a transfer order. A simple look at the order (Annex.13) reveals that it is a relieving order and not a transfer order. Transfer order has been placed by the respondents along with their reply at Annex.R/1. For the reasons best known, the petitioner has not chosen to challenge
