Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Rajasthan · body

2025 DAILYLAW 14559 (RAJ)

SUBHASH CHAND MEENA SON OF B.P. MEENA v. UNION OF INDIA

CW/5500/2025 · 2025-04-17

Sudesh Bansal

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

[2025:RJ-JP:16368] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5500/2025 Subhash Chand Meena Son Of B.P. Meena, Aged About 56 Years, R/o B-396, Shanti Nagar, Gurjar Ki Thadi, Sodala, Jaipur At Present Working As Sales Executive, Regional Office, Jaipur Group Of Service B And C. ----Petitioner Versus 1. Union Of India, Through Tribal Marketing Development Federation Of India Ltd. (Trifed), Ministry Of Tribal Affairs, Government Of India, Head Office, New Delhi (Department Of Personnel) Through DGM (Personnel) 2. Regional Manager, Tribunal Cooperative Marketing Development Federation Of India Ltd. (Trifed),nehru Sahkar Bhawan, 4Th Manjil, Room No. 406, Bhawani Singh Road, Jaipur. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Ms. Madhu Meena For Respondent(s) : Mr. Gaurav Jain HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDESH BANSAL Order 17/04/2025 1. Petitioner was promoted to the post of Senior Accountant and posted at 22 Godown, Jaipur. Petitioner has questioned his transfer order dated 25.02.2025, wherein he has been transferred from Regional Office Jaipur to Regional Office-North (TS-Manali) stating inter-alia that petitioner is suffering from heart ailment. 2. Having heard counsel for both the parties, this Court finds that this is an admitted fact that petitioner has remained posted at Jaipur since 1998 onwards. Petitioner has not averred any mala fide against the respondents nor has pointed out that his transfer [2025:RJ-JP:16368] (2 of 2) [CW-5500/2025] order is against the transfer policy or in flagrant violation of any statutory rules or judicial precedents. 3. In case of Union of India Vs. Deepak Niranjan Nath Pandit [(2020) 3 SCC 404], the Apex Court has held that interference with transfer order is in excess of jurisdiction and improper exercise of judicial power, when there is no mala fide nor any breach of law in passing the transfer order. 4. In such view of the matter, this Court finds that there is no good reason to interfere with the transfer order on grounds challenged and impugned order does not warrant any interference by this Court in exercise of powers under Article 226/ 227 of the Constitution of India. 5. As a result, the instant writ petition, being devoid of merits, is hereby dismissed. 6. Stay application and pending application(s), if any, stand disposed of. (SUDESH BANSAL),J ashu /11