1 S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.5909/2007. Sang Singh Vs. The State of Rajasthan & Ors. Date of Order :: 3rd October 2007. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH MAHESHWARI Mr. Prithvi Raj Singh, for the petitioner. .. The petitioner, asserting himself to be working on the post of Farash in the respondent department, sought to question his order of transfer dated 31.07.2007 from Circuit House, Jaisalmer to Circuit House, Mount Abu by way of an appeal (No.1429/2007) before the Rajasthan Civil Services Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur that has been rejected by the impugned order dated 09.08.2007. Hence, this writ petition. The petitioner questioned the order of his transfer on the grounds , inter alia, that he was a low paid employee and was transferred 550 kms. away only on the basis of a complaint made by the Manager, Circuit House, Jaisalmer and the transfer order was not proper; that he was transferred vice respondent No.4 Poonam Singh who was a Chowkidar whereas the petitioner was a Farash and the two posts being distinct, he could not have been transferred vice the said respondent. From the memo of appeal filed before the 2 Tribunal, it appears that the petitioner also submitted that he made a representation against his transfer (Annex. P/4 with the memo of appeal) stating his personal difficulties but the representation had not been considered by the department. The Tribunal has proceeded to reject the appeal with the observations that by the order dated 14.09.2005 it appeared that the petitioner was working as Farash-cum- Chowkidar and has nevertheless been posted as Chowkidar; that the petitioner has failed to show if the transfer was suffering from any mala fide; and that the transfer order was made only for the administrative reasons. The Tribunal has further observed that if he had any grievance against the transfer order, the petitioner ought to have made a proper representation with the authorities concerned and else he was working on a transferable post and it was not shown if the transfer order was suffering from violation of any statutory requirement. While arguing this writ petition, learned counsel for the petitioner, in all fairness, has limited his submissions only to the extent that the Tribunal has been in error in not considering the fact that the petitioner did make a representation stating his personal difficulties and the said representation was not considered; and the Tribunal has erred in observing as if no any representation was made. 3 Learned Deputy Government Advocate has attempted to support the order impugned but could not dispute the position obtainable on record that the petitioner did make a representation on 01.08.2007 and took the averment in that regard in his appeal but the Tribunal has not addressed itself to the said fact available on record. It has been pointed out that the petitioner has yet not been relieved from Circuit House, Jaisalmer. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case where the petitioner has pointed out that he is low paid employee and has in his family five children, ailing mother in 70 years of age and old and infirm father in 83 years of age, and the petitioner had already made representation to the authorities concerned and has yet not been relieved, it appears appropriate that the authorities should take objective decision on the representation made by the petitioner and if necessary, the petitioner may make representation afresh within a week from today. Till the authorities take final decision on the representation of the petitioner, status quo as was obtainable on the date of filing of this writ petition in relation to the posting of the petitioner may be maintained. Accordingly, this writ petition is partly allowed to the extent indicated above; the impugned order passed by the Tribunal on 09.08.2007 is modified in the manner that the 4 concerned authorities shall take decision on the representation already made by the petitioner, or if made afresh within a week from today, objectively and at the earliest. Until taking of such decision by the authorities concerned, status quo as was obtainable in relation to the posting of the petitioner on 11.09.2007, the date of filing of this writ petition, shall be maintained. No costs. (DINESH MAHESHWARI), J. Mohan/