Rajasthan High Court – Jaipur
Akshaibar Nath Singh S/O Shri Vinay … vs Ajmer Vidyut Vitran Nigam Limited … on 28 February, 2025
Author: Sameer Jain
Bench: Sameer Jain
[2025:RJ-JP:8915]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2724/2025
Akshaibar Nath Singh S/o Shri Vinay Kumar Singh, Aged About
37 Years, R/o Dev Colony, Near Shiv Ji Temple, Rajgarh Road,
Pilani, District Jhunjhunu At Present Working On The Post Of
Junior Engineer, In The Office Of Assistant Engineer (O And M)
Avvnl Chirawa District Jhunjhunu.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. Ajmer Vidyut Vitran Nigam Limited, Vidyut Bhawan,
Panchsheel Nagar, Makadwali Road, Ajmer Its Managing
Director
2. Secretary (Admn.), Avvnl Vidyut Bhawan, Panchsheel
Nagar, Makadwali Road, Ajmer
3. Assistant Engineer, (O And M), Avvnl, Chirawa District
Jhunjhunu.
4. Vikash Jangir, At Present Working On The Post Of Junior
Engineer, In The Office Of Assistant Engineer (R) Avvnl
Nawalgarh District Jhunjhunu.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Sanjeev Kumar Mahala, Advocate.
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Abhishek Sharma, Advocate.
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SAMEER JAIN
Judgment
28/02/2025
1. At the outset, learned counsel for the petitioner has
submitted that the present petition is filed assailing the frequent
transfer orders passed by the respondents qua the petitioner.
2. It is further submitted that in pursuance of the transfer order
dated 14.01.2025 (Annexure-1), and being an obedient employee,
the petitioner immediately joined at the new place of posting i.e.
at Chirawa (Annexure-2). Further, learned counsel has contended
(Downloaded on 05/03/2025 at 10:13:25 PM)
[2025:RJ-JP:8915] (2 of 3) [CW-2724/2025]
that for the reasons best known vide Annexure-3 (order bearing
no. 1161 dated 15.01.2025) and vide Annexure-4 (order 1192
dated 15.01.2025) in spite of Annexure-1 being operative, the
petitioner was further transferred at a different place(s) i.e. at
Sikar and subsequently at Bissau, on the same date.
3. Further, it is submitted that the frequent transfer orders
show non-application of mind, uncertainty and a callous attitude
on the part of the respondents. Nevertheless, due to the said
action of the respondents the petitioner should not be subjected
to unwarranted hardship and be allowed to continue service at his
erstwhile place of posting.
4. Learned counsel for the respondents has submitted that bulk
transfers were carried out due to the re-motion of Bank. Perhaps
on account of inadvertent error or on account of administrative
exigencies to be carried out in public utility services, the said
transfer orders were passed. It is further submitted that no
cursory manner is adopted whilst passing the said transfer orders.
5. Howsoever, it is submitted that considering the frequent
transfers in this short interval, if representation is filed by the
petitioner, same will be considered sympathetically by the
respondents.
6. In light of the above, and taking note of the extraordinary
and unique scenario of the present matter, this Court directs that
if representation is filed by the petitioner within two working days,
the same shall be considered in three working days thereafter,
sympathetically by the respondents, by passing a speaking order.
7. Accordingly, the present petition is disposed of. It is made
clear that if the petitioner so chooses to file a representation, no
(Downloaded on 05/03/2025 at 10:13:25 PM)
[2025:RJ-JP:8915] (3 of 3) [CW-2724/2025]
disciplinary/coercive actions shall be taken vis-a-vis the petitioner
due to his non-joining, till final adjudication of the said
representation. Pending applications, if any, shall stand disposed
of.
(SAMEER JAIN),J
Tushar/421
(Downloaded on 05/03/2025 at 10:13:25 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
[ad_1]
Source link