Allow Cookies!
By using our website, you agree to the use of cookies
The law reflected in two orders passed by the High Court in the 2016 case of Manjula Patak v State of Rajasthan, Justice Alok Sharma held,
“The cumulative effect of the two orders aforesaid entails an enunciation by the court that the transfer of an employee within a year of his imminent superannuation deserves interference.
The thought process behind the two orders referred to above, appears to have been that a superannuating employee, in the last year of his service, should not ordinarily be disturbed by the State, as a model employer, lest the exercise entail unwarranted inconvenience and difficulties for him in post retiral settlement.“
The Court was hearing a challenge to an order passed by the Rajasthan Civil Services Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur in March this year. Justice Sharma, however, found no merit in this challenge.
He noted that ordinarily, the Court would not interfere in an employer’s discretionary power to transfer an employee. However, he proceeded to observe,
“Policy and practice of the State Government are also to be reckoned…to evaluate an attack founded on arbitrariness against an order of transfer.”
Justice Sharma found that this transfer was in violation of the law laid down in Manjula Patak’s case, thereby warranting the Court’s interference.
“In the instant case the transfer order…vide which the respondent No 3 was transferred and which has been quashed by the Tribunal, sought to displace the respondent No. 3…a mere six months before his superannuation. That was in the cross hair of the inarticulate by yet principal premise of the order of this court in the case of Manjula Pathak.”
Therefore, the Court dismissed the petition and upheld the Tribunal’s order quashing Anil Kumar Jain’s transfer.
86540
103860
630
114
59824