JUDGMENT 1. - None present for the appellant. This appeal is preferred by the appellant-plaintiff assailing the validity and propriety of judgment dated 22.8.1990 passed by the learned District Judge, Sirohi in Civil Suit No. 2/1985. The appellant-plaintiff preferred the suit seeking a decree for recovery of the amount of Rs. 30,000/- against compensation for mental agony faced by him as a consequence of his transfer from Sirohi to Hindaun City under an order dated 16.5.1985 passed by the Superintending Engineer (T.C.C. 3) Rajasthan State Electricity Board, Ajmer. The transfer made by the order dated 16.5.1983 was cancelled on 27.6.1983. The effect was not given to the order dated 16.5.1983, as such the plaintiff, in the period when the order of transfer remained on papers, remained on CL and he never joined at Hindaun City. However, the grievance of the plaintiff as averred in the plaint is that he was transferred from Sirohi to Hindaun City as a consequence of a false complaint made against him. He has further stated in the plaint that he spent a sum of Rs. 10,000/- in meeting various officers of the Board including the Chairman and also to the office bearers of the Trade Union of the workmen. 2. A written statement was filed on behalf of the defendants-respondent stating therein that the order dated 16.5.1983 was passed in administrative exigency and the same was not at all stigmatic. The order dated 16.5.1983 no where mentions that it was passed on the basis of the complaint made by any other co-employee or otherwise. It is also stated in the written statement that there was no question of causing any injury to the plaintiff as in pursuance of the order dated 1-6.5.1983 he was never relieved from his office at Sirohi and virtually the order of transfer remained on papers only. It is also stated in the written statement that there was no question of causing any injury to the plaintiff as in pursuance of the order dated 1-6.5.1983 he was never relieved from his office at Sirohi and virtually the order of transfer remained on papers only. On the basis of the pleadings the trial Court framed following issues : " 1- vk;k fn0 16-05-1983 dks oknh dk LFkkukUrj.k izfroknhx.k ds vf/kdkfj;ksa us fljksgh ls fg.Mksu >wBh fjiksVZ ds vk/kkj ij oknh dks vkfFkZd o ekufld osnuk igqWapkus ds mn~ns'; ls fd;k\-----oknh 2- vk;k oknh ds LFkkukUrj.k dks jn~n djus dh dksbZ lwpuk oknh dks ugha nh xbZ\------oknh 3- vk;k oknh dks ekufld osnuk mldh izfr"Bk dks Bsl igqWapkbZ xbZ vkSj oknh dks [kpsZa dk Hkkj okgu djuk iM+k ftlds fy, izfroknh ftEesnkj gS\-------oknh 4- vk;k oknh rhl gtkj :i;s okn i= ds iSjk la0 8 ds fooj.kksa ds vuqlkj ikus dk vf/kdkjh gS\ 5- vk;k fo|qr iznk; vf/kfu;e 48 ds v/khu bl izdkj dk nkok vifjiks"k.kh; gSa\ 6- vk;k os vf/kdkjh] ftUgksaus LFkkukUrj.k vkns'k tkjh fd;k] vko';d i{kdkj gSa\ 7- vk;k izfroknh vijks{k :i ls gtsZ [kpsZ dk ftEesokj ugha gS\ 8- vuqrks"kA " 3. The trial Court after examining the witnesses and material available on record dismissed the suit holding that the order dated 16.5.1983 was passed in administrative exigency and the plaintiff failed to establish any injury caused to him making him entitled for getting compensation from the Board. 3 4. I have heard learned counsel for the respondents-defendants and also perused the impugned judgment as well as the record. The trial Court relied upon the statements given by DW-1 Praduman Kumar, Superintending Engineer, T.C.C.-3, the author the order dated 16.5.1983. Sh. Prduman Kumar in quite unambiguous terms stated that the order dated 16.5.1983 was passed in 4 administrative exigency. The same was cancelled after verifying the administrative set up and circumstances at Sirohi. The plaintiff was never relieved from Sirohi in pursuance of the order dated 16.5.1983. In view of it he has reiterated that no injury was caused to plaintiff. The trial Court has not believed the witnesses produced by the plaintiff on the count that there were lot of discrepancies in their statements. The plaintiff also failed to establish that any injury was caused to him making him entitled for getting compensation. 5. In view of it he has reiterated that no injury was caused to plaintiff. The trial Court has not believed the witnesses produced by the plaintiff on the count that there were lot of discrepancies in their statements. The plaintiff also failed to establish that any injury was caused to him making him entitled for getting compensation. 5. I do not find any reason to disbelieve the statement given by Sh. Praduman Kumar, who in ambiguous terms stated that by the order of transfer no loss/injury was caused to the plaintiff as he was never relieved from Sirohi in pursuance of the order dated 16.5.1983. He has also denied that the plaintiff made contact to the officers of the respondent Board for getting his order of transfer cancelled. 6. Looking to all these facts I am of the considered opinion that the trial Court has not committed any error in dismissing the suit. The appeal, therefore, also deserves to be dismissed and the same is hereby dismissed. Cost is made easy.Appeal dismissed. *******