1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH JAIPUR ORDER S.B.CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.15449/2010 Om Prakash Sachdeva 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 – Dy. General Manager (Tech.), Instrumentation Limited, Kota has challenged his transfer order dated 29.10.2010 (Anx.16) from Kota Unit to Vizag Site P-DDC (R&SO) near Vishakhapattnam. (3) At the outset, counsel for the petitioner has withdrawn the allegations of mala fide levelled against the respondents and confined his submissions to the petitioner's hardship.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, who is a patient of slip disc, is completely unable to undertake journey. Counsel further expressed illness of other family members of the petitioner. Counsel also submits that the petitioner is at the verge of retirement and will retire on 30.6.2011 on attaining the age of superannuation of 60 years. Counsel for the petitioner then submits that although the petitioner has orally requested the respondents for cancellation of the impugned transfer order on the aforesaid 2 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 employee and on account of administrative exigency, he was transferred to Vishakhapattnam. There is no policy of the Instrumentation Limited not to transfer officers within two years of retirement. Mr. Maloo, counsel for the respondents has disputed the correctness of the documents submitted by the petitioner in support of the 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. Even if the petitioner joins at Vishakhapattnam, then he may not be able to discharge his duties efficiently and ultimately, he will retire on 30.6.2011 and thereafter, the respondents will have to make other arrangement. However, keeping in view the hardship of the petitioner, as stated in the writ petition, and the fact that the petitioner is at the verge of retirement and will retire on 30.6.2011 on attaining the age of superannuation, the representation of the petitioner deserves to be considered by the respondents. (8) Accordingly, considering the aforesaid particular facts relating to hardship of this case, 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 3 same within another period of two weeks and till then, the impugned transfer order dated 29.10.2010 (Anx.16) shall not be further implemented. (9) The writ petition is disposed of, as indicated above. (Prem Shanker Asopa) J. गोpa ल