1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH JAIPUR ORDER S.B.CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.16447/2010 Nathu Lal Mahawar Versus Rajasthan Civil Services Appellate Tribunal and others DATE OF ORDER --- December 15,2010 PRESENT HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE PREM SHANKER ASOPA Mr.D.K.Bhardwaj, for the petitioner BY THE COURT (1) Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. (2) By this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the transfer order dated 1.10.2010 (Anx.3) as UDC from Chaksu (Jaipur) to Jhunjhunu City (Jhunjhunu). (3) Against the aforesaid order of his transfer, the petitioner filed Appeal No.3787/2010 before the Rajasthan Civil Services Appellate Tribunal (in short `the Tribunal') on the ground that his wife is working as Teacher in Govt. Girls Upper Primary School, Kanota (Tehsil Bassi) and further, his daughter, aged 21 years, is suffering from Hystero Epilepsy and is being treated at Jaipur, therefore, his transfer is in violation of the policy of the Government and that the petitioner has been transferred to accommodate the respondent No.4. (3) The Tribunal, after considering the submissions of the petitioner and the judgment of the Supreme Court in Smt.Shilpi Bose and others V. State of Bihar and others (AIR 1991 SC 532) 2 and Bank of India V. Jagjit Singh Mehta (AIR 1992 SC 519) came to the conclusion that the petitioner has been relieved from the Census duty to join at the new place of posting, therefore, he is not entitled to any relief in the appeal. However, as regards his personal difficulties and illness of his daughter (wrongly referred as son at page 4 of the order of the Tribunal) the petitioner is free to file representation to the respondents and pray for appropriate action but on that count, help of the Tribunal is not justified. Ultimately, the appeal was dismissed on the ground that the petitioner was transferred on administrative ground vide order dated 1.10.2010 and there is no force in the appeal. (4) Submission of counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner, who is a low paid employee, was working at Chaksu since 25.6.2003 and there was no complaint against him. Further submission of the counsel is that petitioner's transfer has been made without any administrative exigency and in order to accommodate the respondent No.4 Mohan Lal Khakliwal and further that since the petitioner was performing the duties of Census, he could not have been transferred. Counsel also submits that petitioner's wife is working as a Teacher in Govt. Girls' Upper Primary School, Kanota (Tehsil Bassi) and his daughter, aged 21 years, who is suffering from Hystero Epilepsy, is being treated at Jaipur. (5) I have gone through record of the writ petition and further considered the submissions made by counsel for the petitioner. (6) I find that on merit, the judgment and order dated 7.12.2010 (Anx.7) passed by the Tribunal is legal and justified. However, with regard to the observation of the Tribunal for filing 3 representation and there being no justification to give help to the petitioner, it is clarified that in case representation is submitted by the petitioner, then it is expected of the respondents to decide the same within a reasonable time. (7) With the above observations, the writ petition is dismissed. (Prem Shanker Asopa) J. गोpa ल