1 S.B.CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.2119/2008 Jagdish Chandra & Ors. v. State of Rajasthan & Ors. Date of Order :: 8th May, 2008 HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE GOVIND MATHUR Mr. R.C.Joshi, for the petitioners. Mr. A.S.Rathore, for the respondents. .... On being declared surplus in the Department of Irrigation, the petitioners, the Patwaris, were absorbed in the Department of Revenue, Government of Rajasthan. Subsequent thereto, a decision was taken to transfer the petitioners and other similarly situated Patwaris to the Department of Irrigation. Being aggrieved by the same, certain petitions for writ were preferred before this Court and those came to be disposed of on 9.3.2006 (SBCivil Writ Petition No.5819/2005, Hem Raj Bhavsar v. State of Rajasthan & Ors.) with an observation that “the wholesale orders passed earlier are under contemplation of reconsideration, and only those Patwaris are contemplated to be transferred to Irrigation Department, who are agreeable to such transfers, on condition of transfer of lean to Irrigation Department.” 2 The observations made above makes it clear that the transfer of Patwaris from Revenue Department to Irrigation Department was required to be made only for those persons who are agreed to be absorbed with the Department of Irrigation. The Deputy Registrar (Land Records), the Board of Rajasthan for Rajasthan, Ajmer, under an order dated 16.5.2007 transferred the petitioners from the Department of Irrigation to Department of Revenue with a view to restore their position that was prior to the judgment of this Court in the case of Hem Raj Bhavsar (supra). In pursuant to the order aforesaid the petitioners were not relieved and an order dated 5.7.2007 was then passed with a direction to the Registrar, Board of Revenue for Rajasthan, Ajmer, that if, the persons transferred from Irrigation Department to Revenue Department have not been relieved, then no effect be given to the orders of transfers. This petition for writ is preferred being aggrieved thereof. The contention of counsel for the petitioners is that the petitioners were permanently absorbed with the Department of Revenue and on being transferred to Irrigation Department they filed writ petitions before this Court and that came to be disposed of in light of the judgment of this Court in the case of Hem Raj Bhavsar (supra). As per the judgment referred above the Patwaris who were already absorbed with the Revenue Department were not required 3 to be sent to the Irrigation Department, if not agreeable for that. The petitioners were not at all agreeable to be transferred to the Department of Irrigation and, therefore, they should have been kept with the Department of Revenue. As a matter of fact, the order dated 16.5.2007 was passed to maintain the position of the petitioners as Patwaris in Department of Revenue, but for no just reason effect is not given to the order aforesaid. Per contra, the stand of the respondents is that the Government as a policy decided not to transfer or sent back the Patwaris working in the Irrigation Department to the Revenue Department. Heard counsel for the parties. The petitioners were working in Irrigation Department and on being declared surplus, they were absorbed in Revenue Department. Subsequently they were again sent to the Department of Irrigation and that action of the respondents was subject matter of a petition for writ filed before this Court. This Court in the case of Hem Raj Bhavsar (supra) in quite unambiguous terms observed that only those Patwaris are contemplated to be transferred to the Irrigation Department who are agreeable to such transfer. The petitioners were never agreeable for transfer to the Irrigation Department and, therefore, their transfer 4 from Irrigation Department to Revenue Department was made under the order dated 16.5.2007. The order dated 16.5.2007 is in consonance with the stand of the respondents in the case of Hem Raj Bhavsar (supra). After giving such an assurance before this Court in the case of Hem Raj Bhavsar (supra) it was not open for the respondents to remit the petitioners to the Department of Irrigation. The decision of the respondents not to relieve the petitioners from the Department of Irrigation in pursuant to the order dated 16.5.2007, therefore, is apparently bad. The petition for writ, therefore, succeeds and the same is allowed. The respondents are directed to operate the order dated 16.5.2007 forthwith. No order to costs. ( GOVIND MATHUR ),J. KKM/PS.