Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Rajasthan · body

2025 DAILYLAW 36122 (RAJ)

BHOMA RAM v. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

CW/2363/2021 · 2025-02-20

Arun Monga

Public Interest Litigationbody2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

[2024:RJ-JD:6248] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2363/2021 Bhoma Ram S/o Shri Dhanuram Dholi, Aged About 42 Years, Nathdau Via Pilwa, Tehsil Shergarh District Jodhpur Pin-342309. ----Petitioner Versus 1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary, Home Department, Secretariat, Jaipur. 2. The Inspector General Of Police, Jodhpur Range, Jodhpur. 3. The Police Commissioner, Jodhpur Metropolitan, Jodhpur. 4. The Deputy Commissioner Police, Traffic And Head Quarter, Commissionerate Office, Jodhpur. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Manoj Bhandari Mr. Mohit Choudhary For Respondent(s) : Mr. Anil Bissa HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN MONGA Order 06/02/2024 1. Grievance of the petitioner stems from an impugned transfer order dated 02.02.2021 (Annexure-9), vide which he was transferred from Police Station, Pratap Nagar to Police Line, Jodhpur while treating him as Constable (Band). However, during the pendency of writ proceedings, a co-ordinate bench of this court passed an interim order dated 09.02.2021 staying the implementation of the transfer order. 2. Aforesaid stay order continues to subsist in favor of the petitioner till date. 3. Transfers are a standard and integral aspect of government employment conditions. Employees do not possess an inherent [2024:RJ-JD:6248] (2 of 2) [CW-2363/2021] right to demand continuation of their service at a specific location. 4. This court ordinarily refrains from intervening in transfer matters, acknowledging administrative needs for employees to fulfill their duties at assigned locations. 5. In the instant case, given the duration of the interim protection granted by this court, its utility appears to have waned over time. 6. Be that as it may, the interim order is made absolute, but with liberty to the respondents to pass fresh orders in future, if necessary due to administrative exigency. 7. In the parting, it is made clear that granting liberty to pass fresh orders is not to be construed as a direction of this Court to necessarily pass fresh orders in case there is no such requirement otherwise. 8. Disposed of as above. (ARUN MONGA),J 324-DhananjayS/-