1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH JAIPUR ORDER S.B.CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.15420/2010 Om Prakash Solanki Versus Instrumentation Limited and another DATE OF ORDER --- December 07,2010 PRESENT HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE PREM SHANKER ASOPA Mr.Rajvir Sharma, for the petitioner Mr.N.K.Maloo, for the respondents BY THE COURT (1) Heard learned counsel for the parties. (2) By this writ petition, the petitioner – Additional General Manager (Tech.), Instrumentation Limited, Kota has challenged his transfer order dated 29.10.2010 (Anx.10) from SG-I Kota Unit to Patratu Site P-DDC (R&SO), Chattisgarh. (3) At the outset, counsel for the petitioner has withdrawn the allegations of mala fide levelled against the respondents and confined his submissions to the petitioner's hardship. (4) Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is a patient of diabetes, blood pressure and kidney and the doctors have advised him to avoid travelling and physical exertion. Counsel further submits that the petitioner is due to retire on 30.7.2012 on attaining the age of superannuation of 60 years. Counsel for the petitioner also submits that although the petitioner has orally requested the respondents for cancellation of the impugned transfer order on the aforesaid grounds but his request was not acceded to and now the petitioner is desirous of filing a representation in writing stating the aforesaid grounds of hardship, along with the documents. (5) Counsel for the respondents submits that the petitioner is a highly paid 2 officer and on account of administrative exigency, he was transferred to Chattisgarh. There is no policy not to transfer an officer within two years of his retirement. Further, Mr. Maloo has disputed the correctness of the documents submitted by the petitioner in support of medical illness. However, in case the petitioner submits any representation along with the documents on the aforesaid grounds of hardship, then the respondents are prepared to consider the same and pass appropriate order. (6) I have gone through record of the writ petition and further considered the aforesaid submissions of counsel for the parties. (7) It is settled law that consideration of the relative hardship and administrative exigency is within the domain of the management and it is not for the Court to decide the relative hardship. There is no policy in the Instrumentation Limited for not transferring officers within two years of retirement and the petitioner will retire after one year and a half. However, keeping in view the hardship of the petitioner on medical ground, as stated in the writ petition, the representation of the petitioner deserves to be considered by the respondents. (8) Accordingly, considering the aforesaid particular facts relating to hardship of the petitioner, it is directed that in case the petitioner submits representation along with the documents to the respondents within a period of two weeks from today, then the respondents shall examine and decide the same within another period of two weeks and till then, the impugned transfer order dated 29.10.2010 (Anx.10) shall not be further implemented. (9) The writ petition is disposed of, as indicated above. (Prem Shanker Asopa) J. गोpa ल