1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR. O R D E R S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION No.6195/2007. : : Arun Prasad Mishra Vs. Chief Engineer (Rural) PHED & Anr. : : Date of Order 28.8.2008 HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MOHAMMAD RAFIQ Mr.Anil Upman for the petitioner. Mr.S.S.Sharma, Govt.Counsel for the State. This writ petition has been filed aggrieved by the order dated 18.7.2007 whereby the petitioner was kept awaiting posting order. The petitioner was working on the post of store munshi in the Office of Executive Engineer, PHED, Division Dholpur. Shri Anil Upman, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has been transferred twice within 23 days. There was neither any administrative exigency nor any public interest for his transfer. It is argued that the petitioner was disturbed from his present place of posting and his transfer has been made only to harass the petitioner due to political pressure. No one has so far been 2 posted vice the petitioner. Learned counsel has further argued that the petitioner was kept awaiting posting order by the orders of respondents dated 23.4.2007 and he joined at the Headquarter at Jaipur on 24.4.2007 where he remained till 25.6.2007 when the respondents issued fresh order dated 25.6.2007 withdrawing the earlier order dated 23.4.2007. The petitioner thus continued in the old posting at Dholpur with effect from 2.7.2007. Petitioner was then ordered to remain under awaiting posting order vide order dated 18.7.2007. There was no administrative exigency or public interest in again keeping the petitioner awaiting posting order. Learned counsel argued that reply submitted by the respondents indicates that the petitioner has been kept awaiting posting order on account of certain complaint received against him. It would be thus evident that the transfer of the petitioner was panel in nature. It was therefore, incumbent upon the respondents to serve a notice to him and hold an enquiry on allegations in the complaint. Petitioner is a low paid employee working on the post of store munshi which is equivalent to LDC and that the Government has a policy not to transfer a low paid employee to far and distant place. Learned counsel cited a circular dated 25.5.2007 and argued that in cases where Government 3 employees are kept awaiting posting order, the period cannot exceed 15 days whereas in the present case, the petitioner was kept awaiting posting order for two months. This Court should interfere in the matter as the impugned order suffers from the vice of malafides on the part of the respondents in keeping the petitioner awaiting posting order and the impugned order should be quashed and set aside. Mr.S.S.Sharma, learned Government Counsel contested the writ petition and argued that the petitioner was simply kept awaiting posting order in the light of complaint against his working at Dholpur inasmuch as the petitioner had remained posted in this very office since 1985. To transfer any of its employee in the service, is the right of the employer. It is submitted that the petitioner was never posted anywhere else in last 23 years and has been continuously working at the same place. Learned Government Counsel further argued that since the petitioner is holding a transferable post, he cannot insist on being continued in the same office for ever. Transfer is one of the incident and he cannot resist his transfer. Upon hearing the learned counsel for the parties and perusing the material available on record, I find that the impugned order is simply an order by which the petitioner 4 has been kept awaiting posting order. The petitioner is not in a position to deny the fact that he had remained in this very office since 1985. It is also evident that the petitioner was earlier kept awaiting posting order for two months and thereafter again by the impugned order dated 18.7.2007 he has been kept awaiting posting order. But that by itself may not be a sufficient ground to hold that transfer of the petitioner should be taken to have been made for reasons of malafide. Even if there be a policy of the Government to keep low paid employees adjacent their home place and not to transfer them at a distant place, it is for the Government to act according to such policy. Scope of interference by this Court in the matters of transfer by now is very limited. The Supreme Court in catena of judgments has held that it is only when the order of transfer has been passed in violation of any statutory rule or on proven allegations of malafides then this Court may interference. On the contrary, the matter is that a person continuing in the same for last 23 years, if sought to be shifted elsewhere in world only work in the interest or efficiency of the service and this by itself can be cited as an administrative exigency. Doing so would only prevent the vested interest to develop. 5 So far the petitioner has merely been kept awaiting posting order and has not been transferred by indicating any place of transfer, therefore, the argument that the petitioner being low paid employee cannot be transferred to a far and distant place, cannot be sustained. When there is a circular of the Government dated 25.7.2007 not to keep an employee awaiting posting order normally for more than 15 days, the Government should try to give the posting to such an employee at the earliest even if he is not to be retained in that office more particularly when there is a vacant pot in such office. Contention that the petitioner should have been given notice or an enquiry should have been conducted before he was shifted elsewhere and kept awaiting posting order, is devoid of any substance. The petitioner was kept awaiting posting order because of complaints received against him and holding an enquiry might not necessary to disassociate him from that office. Transfer of its employee is prerogative of the employer and one of the incidents of the service, which cannot be interfered with. I, therefore, do not find any merit in this writ petition and the same is deserves to be dismissed. 6 In the result, this writ petition is dismissed with direction to the Government to give fresh posting order to the petitioner within 15 days from the date copy of the judgment is received/served upon them. (MOHAMMAD RAFIQ)J. A.Arora/-