Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2004 DIGILAW 1442 (RAJ)

Shanta Devi v. State of Rajasthan

2004-10-01

SUNIL KUMAR GARG

body2004
Judgment S.K. Garg, J.-Both the abovementioned writ petitions are being decided by this common order as in both of them common questions of law and facts are involved. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2610/2004 Smt. Shanta Devi vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. 2. This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioner against the respondents on 23.06.2004 with the prayer that by an appropriate writ, order or direction, the order dated 25.06.2002 (Annexure-P/3) passed by the Respondent No. 2 Director, Panchatyati Raj Department, Government of Rajasthan, Jaipur by which four Hand Pump Mistri including the present petitioner were declared surplus from Panchayat Samiti, Banswara Headquarter Talwara and the petitioner was proposed to be transferred from Banswara District to Alwar District and further, the notice dated 28.05.2004 (Annexure-P/6) issued by the Respondent No. 4 Development Officer, Panchayat Samiti, Banswara by which the petitioner was to be transferred to Alwar, be quashed and set aside. 3. The case of the petitioner as put forward by her in this writ petition is as follows:-A project was launched by the Central Government, namely “Swach Pariyojna” and the aim of that Project was to provide pure and clean drinking water to rural tribal people. The case of the petitioner is that under the said Project, many hand-pumps were dug and as per that Project, there were specific provisions for giving training of hand-pump mistri and for that, applications were invited and the petitioner submitted her application and she was selected and she had undergone six months ‘training of hand-pump mistri and after completion of training, through order Annexure-P/1 dated 30.06.1993 passed by the Respondent No. 4 Development Officer, Panchayat Samiti Banswara Hq. Talwara, the petitioner was given appointment on contract basis to repair ten hand-pump situated at Panchayat Abbapura and as per order Annexure-P/1, the petitioner was entitled to get Rs. 200/-per hand pump per year. Talwara, the petitioner was given appointment on contract basis to repair ten hand-pump situated at Panchayat Abbapura and as per order Annexure-P/1, the petitioner was entitled to get Rs. 200/-per hand pump per year. The further case of the petitioner is that there were many hand pump mistries and since their services were not regularized, therefore, one Radhey Shyam Dhobi filed a writ petition before this Court seeking regularization of service as hand pump mistri and this Court directed that services of hand pump mistries be regularized and in pursuance of the order of this Court, the State Government passed order that services of those hand pump mistries appointed on contract basis, who had completed two years contract with the State Government, be regularized and thereafter, the Respondent No. 4 Development Officer, Panchayat Samiti, Banswara Hq. Talwara through order Annexure-P/2 dated 22.01.1996 regularized the services of those persons, who had completed two years service as hand pump mistries on contract basis and fixed in the pay scale of Rs. 750-940/-and in that order Annexure-P/2 the name of the petitioner appeared at Serial No. 22. Thereafter, the Respondent No. 2 Director Panchayati Raj Department, Government of Rajasthan, Jaipur passed order Annexure-P/3 dated 25.06.2002 by which four Hand Pump Mistri including the present petitioner were declared surplus from Panchayat Samiti, Banswara Headquarter Talwara and the petitioner was proposed to be transferred from Banswara District to Alwar District. Aggrieved from the said order Annexure-P/3 dated 25.06.2002, the petitioner filed a writ petition before this Court being S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.2601/2002 and that writ petition was disposed of by this Court through order dated 29.08.2002 (Annexure-P/7) in the following manner:- “Heard learned Counsel. Learned Counsel for the respondents has frankly submitted that the petitioner is not going to transfer in future. In view of above statement, the writ petition is disposed of . However, in case, in future, if petitioner is to be transferred, prior notice of one month’s be given to the petitioner.” The further case of the petitioner is that the Respondent No. 4 Development Officer issued notice Exhibit-P/6 darted 28.05.2004 to the petitioner mentioning therein that in compliance of the order of this Court (Annexure-P/7) passed in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2601/02, the petitioner was going to be transferred to Alwar meaning thereby before transferring, one month notice was given to the petitioner. In this writ petition, order Annexure-P/3 dated 25.06.2002 and notice Annexure-P/6 dated 28.05.2004 have been challenged by the petitioner and the main submissions of the petitioner are as follows:- (i) That in the impugned notice Annexure-P/6, it has been wrongly mentioned that in compliance of the order of this Court (Annexure-P/7 dated 29.08.2002), the petitioner was going to be transferred to Alwar from Banswara as there was no such direction in the order of this Court Annexure-P/7 dated 29.08.2002. Hence, the impugned notice Annexure-P/6 dated 28.05.2004 has become vitiated of containing those remarks. (ii) That the place “Alwar “ is far away from Banswara, where the petitioner resides and she is a lady belonging to scheduled tribe category and she is a low paid employee and, therefore, if she is transferred from Banswara to Alwar, a great hardship would be caused to her and on humanitarian ground also, she should not be transferred to Alwar from Banswara. A reply to the writ petition was filed by the respondents and it was submitted by them that in compliance of the order of this Court dated 29.08.2002 (Annexure-P/7), one month notice (Annexure-P/6 dated 28.05.2004) prior to her transfer was served upon the petitioner and, therefore, compliance of the order of this Court Annexure-P/7 dated 29.08.2002 was made by the respondents and after expiry of period of one month notice Annexure-P/6, the petitioner was relieved on 29.06.2004 to join her duties at Alwar. Hence, no interference is called for in this writ petition and the same deserves to be dismissed. 4. I have heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Counsel for the respondents and gone through the entire materials available on record. 5. There is no dispute on the point that the petitioner is a member of scheduled tribe category and she is living in Banswara District where after completion to six months’ training, she was appointed as hand pump mistri on contract basis through order Annexure-P1 dated 30.06.1993 and she was given the job of repairing ten hand pumps situated in Panchayat Abapura and thereafter, through order Annexure-P/2 dated 22.01.1996, the services of the petitioner were regularized as hand pump mistri. 6. There is also no dispute on the point that through order Annexure-P/3 dated 25.06.2002, the petitioner was declared surplus and she was proposed to be transferred from Banswara to Alwar. 7. 6. There is also no dispute on the point that through order Annexure-P/3 dated 25.06.2002, the petitioner was declared surplus and she was proposed to be transferred from Banswara to Alwar. 7. There is also no dispute on the point that aggrieved from the said order Annexure-P/3 dated 25.06.2002, the petitioner filed a writ petition before this Court, which was disposed of in the manner as indicated above at page 4 of this order. 8. There is also no dispute on the point that in the impugned notice Annexure-P/6 dated 28.05.2004, it has been mentioned that in view of the decision of this Court in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.2601/02 (Annexure-P/7 dated 29.08.2002), the petitioner was to be transferred and relieved from Banswara to join her duties at Alwar. 9. There is also no dispute on the point that after issuance of the impugned notice Annexure-P/6 dated 28.05.2004, the petitioner, as per reply of the respondents, was relieved on 29.06.2004 to join her duties at Alwar. 10. The question for consideration is whether in the facts and circumstances just narrated above, impugned notice Annexure-P/6 dated 28.05.2004 or subsequent relieving of the petitioner on 29.05.2004 from the post of hand pump mistri from Banswara to join her duties at Alwar can be sustained or not. 11. A bare perusal of the impugned notice Annexure-P/6 dated 28.05.2004 clearly reveals that in it, it has been mentioned by the Respondent No. 4 Development Officer that in compliance of the order of this Court (Annexure-P/7 dated 29.08.2002), the petitioner was going to be transferred to Alwar. This assertion in the impugned notice Annexure-P/6 cannot be sustained as in the order of this Court Annexure-P/7 dated 29.08.2002, nowhere it has been stated that the petitioner could be transferred to Alwar. The only thing, which was mentioned in the order of this Court dated 29.08.2002 (Annexure-P/7), was that before transfer, prior notice of one month should be given to the petitioner. Therefore, the basic ground of transfer of the petitioner to Alwar from Banswara appears to be motivated and should not be sustained. 12. Apart from this, the petitioner is a lady belonging to scheduled tribe category and she is resident of village Gamada P.O. Ambapura Tehsil and District Banswara and she has been transferred to Alwar, which is far away from Banswara and she is a low paid employee. 10.13. 12. Apart from this, the petitioner is a lady belonging to scheduled tribe category and she is resident of village Gamada P.O. Ambapura Tehsil and District Banswara and she has been transferred to Alwar, which is far away from Banswara and she is a low paid employee. 10.13. This Court is aware that personal family hardships are not such sufficient grounds for resisting an order of transfer, but in some peculiar cases, such grounds should be taken into consideration while making transfer of such low paid employee from one District to another, especially in the present case when Alwar is not adjoining District to Banswara but is far away from Banswara. Transfer in the case of scheduled castes and scheduled tribe low paid employees especially cases of women. 14. In Laxmi Narain Mehar vs. Union of India, AIR 1997 SC 1347 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed that as far as possible, the convenience of the officer belonging to Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes may be considered and he may be posted near the home down, but the authority has power to transfer him when the administrative need arises, meaning thereby officer belonging to scheduled castes and scheduled tribe should be given special treatment in the matter of postings and transfers. 15. In the present case, the petitioner is a lady belonging to Scheduled Tribe category and she is a low paid employee and, therefore, she deserves sympathetic consideration while her case for transfer is being examined by the respondents. 16. For the reasons stated above, the transfer of the petitioner from Banswara to Alwar, which covers the distance of more than 500 kms. cannot be justified and thus, the impugned notice Annexure-P/6 dated 28.05.2004 is liable to be quashed and set aside and if any order in consequence of impugned notice Annexure-P/6 has been passed, the same is also liable to be quashed and set aside and this writ petition deserves to be allowed. Accordingly, the writ petition filed by the petitioner Smt. Shanta Devi is allowed and the impugned notice Annexure-P/6 dated 28.05.2004.issued by the Respondent No. 4 Development Officer, Panchayat Samiti Banswara Hq. Talwara is quashed and set aside and if any order in consequence of the impugned notice Annexure-P/6 has been passed, the same also stands quashed and set aside. Accordingly, the writ petition filed by the petitioner Smt. Shanta Devi is allowed and the impugned notice Annexure-P/6 dated 28.05.2004.issued by the Respondent No. 4 Development Officer, Panchayat Samiti Banswara Hq. Talwara is quashed and set aside and if any order in consequence of the impugned notice Annexure-P/6 has been passed, the same also stands quashed and set aside. However, it is made clear that if the respondents find it difficult to post the petitioner at Banswara, they can adjust her at any adjoining District of Banswara and for that, this order would not come in their way. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2611/2004 Smt. Mamta Devi vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. 17. This writ petition raises the same controversy and points, which have been decided above in S.B. CivilWrit Petition No. 2610/04 and thus , for the reasons given in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2610/2004, this writ petition also deserves to be allowed and the impugned notice Annexure-P/6 dated 28.05.2004 is liable to be quashed and set aside and if any order in consequence of impugned notice Annexure-P/6 has been passed , the same is also liable to be quashed and set aside . Accordingly, the writ petition filed by the petitioner Smt. Mamta Devi is allowed and the impugned notice Annexure-P/6 dated 28.05.2004 issued by the Respondent No. 4 Development Officer Panchayat Samiti Banswara Hq. Talwara is quashed and set aside and if any order in consequence of the impugned notice Annexure-P/6 has been passed, the same also stands quashed and set aside . However, it is made clear that if the respondents find it difficult to post the petitioner at Banswara, they can adjust her at any adjoining District of Banswara and for that, this order would not come in their way.