Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 158 (RAJ)

Mahendra Singh Saharan v. State of Rajasthan

2019-01-11

ARUN BHANSALI

body2019
JUDGMENT 1. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner aggrieved against the order dated 20.09.2018 (Annex.-5) and order dated 17.12.2018 (Annex.-8) passed by the Rajasthan Civil Services Appellate Tribunal (the Tribunal), whereby the petitioner has been transferred from Kolayat to Nohar and the appeal filed by the petitioner has been rejected by the Tribunal respectively. 2. The petitioner aggrieved against the order of transfer earlier approached this Court by filing SBCW No. 16521/2018, which was withdrawn with liberty to approach the Tribunal on 26.10.2018, the petitioner filed the appeal before the Tribunal on 31.10.2018, which appeal has been apparently rejected in limine on 17.12.2018. 3. The plea raised by the petitioner pertained to the fact that his mother was 90 years old and required constant look after and that he was due to retire within about 18 months and, therefore, the order of transfer of the petitioner requires interference. 4. The Tribunal by its impugned order with reference to various issues raised by the petitioner, dealt with the same based on various judgments of Honble Supreme Court and the High Court and came to the conclusion that there was no reason to interfere with the order of transfer. 5. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the Tribunal fell in error in dismissing the appeal filed by the petitioner, inasmuch as, the issues raised by the petitioner pertaining to the illness of his mother and he was due to retire within 18 months required appropriate consideration, which the Tribunal has failed to do. 6. Reliance has been placed on the judgment in the case of Magraj Sharma v. State of Rajasthan & Ors.: DBSAW No. 1037/2017, decided on 14.12.2018. 7. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner and have perused the material available on record. 8. The order of transfer dated 20.09.2018 was questioned by the petitioner on account of personal difficulties i.e. illness of his mother as well as the fact that he was due to retire within 18 months. 7. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner and have perused the material available on record. 8. The order of transfer dated 20.09.2018 was questioned by the petitioner on account of personal difficulties i.e. illness of his mother as well as the fact that he was due to retire within 18 months. The Tribunal by the impugned order, dealt with each and every aspect of the matter with reference to the judgments of Honble Supreme Court and this Court, wherein even the aspect of transfer of within two years when the person is due to retire, based on the judgment in the case of Pushpa Mehta v. Rajasthan Civil Services Appellate Tribunal & Ors.: 2000 (2) WLC (Raj.) 725 , was distinguished based on the judgment in the case of Maan Singh v. State of Rajasthan & Ors.: DBSAW No. 586/2013, decided on 02.07.2014, wherein it was specifically laid down that the judgment in the case of Pushpa Mehta (supra), does not lay down universal application and the same has to be decided based on facts and circumstances of the case. 9. Further, as submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner has already joined on the transferred post as no interim order was granted by the Tribunal. 10. The order passed by the Tribunal is well considered and it has dealt with all the issues as raised by the petitioner, which does not call for any interference. 11. So far as the judgment in the case of Magraj Sharma (supra) is concerned, the said judgment was delivered in the facts and circumstances of that case, where the order passed by the authorities earlier remained stayed and at the time of passing of the judgment by the Division Bench, the petitioner therein was due to retire within six months, when relying on judgment in the case of Pushpa Mehta (supra) granted relief, which case on facts is clearly distinguishable. 12. In view of the above discussion, there is no substance in the writ petition, the same is, therefore, dismissed.