Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 935 (RAJ)

Arvind Kumar Aherkar v. State of Rajasthan

2019-03-27

ARUN BHANSALI

body2019
JUDGMENT 1. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner aggrieved against the order dated 06.03.2019, whereby the petitioner has been transferred from the office of Additional Director, Jodhpur to Lavera Bawari, Jodhpur. 2. Aggrieved against the said order, the petitioner approached the Rajasthan Civil Services Appellate Tribunal (the Tribunal) by filing appeal. The petitioner raised two grounds, the first ground pertained to the fact that the petitioner was due to retire in June, 2020 and second that order has been passed without there being any administrative exigency and only to accommodate the respondent No. 4. 3. The Tribunal after hearing the petitioner, came to the conclusion that the fact that the petitioner was due to retire in June, 2020, cannot be a reason for interfering in the matter and dismissed the appeal. 4. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that though the petitioner has pressed both the grounds before the Tribunal, only one ground has been dealt with by the Tribunal and the other ground pertaining to accommodation of the respondent No. 4, has not been dealt with. 5. Further submissions have been made that as the petitioner has been transferred within eight months from the place of present posting, the same is apparently for accommodating respondent No. 4 and therefore, the orders impugned deserve to be quashed and set-aside. 6. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner and have perused the material available on record. 7. A perusal of the order passed by the Tribunal indicates that the Tribunal has dealt with the issue pertaining to the impending retirement of the petitioner, wherein it came to the conclusion that the principles laid down in the case of Pushpa Mehta v. Rajasthan Civil Services Appellate Tribunal & Ors.: 2000 (2) WLC (Raj.) 725 , were not applicable, the order passed is just and proper. 8. So far as the plea raised by the petitioner pertaining to the accommodation of respondent No. 4 is concerned, though the same has not been dealt with by the Tribunal, a perusal of the order dated 06.03.2019 (Annex.4) does not indicate that the respondent No. 4 has been transferred at his request as normally in those circumstances in the order there has to be a specific mention made that the concerned officer would not be entitled for payment of T.A. etc. 9. 9. By the order impugned as many as 51 officers have been transferred and several of them has been transferred qua each other and therefore, merely because some one else has been posted at the petitioners place, it cannot be said that petitioner has been transferred for accommodating the said officer only. 10. In view of the above fact situation, determination as made by the Tribunal does not call for any interference and on the ground which has not been dealt with by the Tribunal on consideration by this Court has no substance. 11. Consequently, the writ petition filed by the petitioner is dismissed.