1 S.B.Civil Writ Petition No.6002/09 Poona Ram Arya v. The State of Raj. & ors. Date of order: 6.7.2009 HON'BLE MR. PRAKASH TATIA, J. Mr. MS Panwar for the petitioner. ... The petitioner who was transferred vide order dated 25.2.2009. When the petitioner challenged the order dated 25.2.2009 by preferring appeal before the Rajasthan Civil Services Appellate Tribunal, Rajasthan, Jaipur, the order dated 26.5.2009 was brought to the notice of the Tribunal, which was passed in view of the order granted in favour of one Madho Ram Purohit in S.B.Civil Writ Petition No.3131/09, by which his transfer against the post which was held by the petitioner, was stayed by the High Court by order dated 31.3.2009 and in view of the said interim order only, the District Collector(Land Records) passed the order dated 26.5.2009 cancelling the transfer of said Madho Ram Purohit and by the same order, the petitioner was transferred to Mount Abu. In view of subsequent order dated 26.5.2009, the Tribunal on 4.6.2009, dismissed the petitioner's appeal holding that now new order has been passed and petitioner's appeal to challenge the order dated 25.2.2009 has become infructuous. The petitioner then challenged the subsequent order dated 26.5.2009 by preferring appeal. That appeal was dismissed on 12.6.2009 on the ground that the petitioner's earlier 2 appeal was dismissed and, therefore, there is no reason to interfere in the subsequent order dated 26.5.2009. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in view of the above two orders placed on record, it is clear that the petitioner's case has not been considered on merit by the Tribunal and the petitioner is to retire on 30.9.2010 and for such a short period, the petitioner should not have been transferred from one place to another place. Since the petitioner's case has not been considered by the Tribunal on merit in both the orders and since the petitioner is going to retire on 30.9.2010, therefore, it will be appropriate to consider the case of the petitioner afresh in the light of the fact that he is to retire in the month of September, 2010 and the State Government may grant appropriate relief to the petitioner if all other things are satisfied by taking into account the short period of service remaining left out. Therefore, the writ petition of the petitioner is disposed as indicated above. ( PRAKASH TATIA),J. mlt.