[2025:RJ-JP:5730] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1391/2025 Mahesh Chand Yadav Son Of Shri Phool Chand Yadav, Aged About 46 Years, Resident Of Village Amarpura, Post Raykaranpura, Tehsil Kotputli, District Kotputli-Behror (Raj) ----Petitioner Versus 1. The Jaipur Vidyut Vitran Nigam Limited, Through Manager And Director, Vidyut Bhawan, Jyoti Nagar, Janpath, Jaipur (Raj). 2. The Chief Personnel Officer, Jaipur Vidyut Vitran Nigam Limited, (Department Of Personnel), Vidyut Bhawan, Janpath, Jaipur (Raj). 3. The Assistant Engineer (O And M), Upd Kotputli, Jaipur (Raj). ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. R. K. Gouttam For Respondent(s) : Mr. Ankur Srivastava HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SAMEER JAIN Judgment 10/02/2025 1. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner is an ex-serviceman who was initially appointed as Commercial Assistant-II in the year 2019. Thereafter, the petitioner was given promotion in the year 2024. It is further submitted that vide impugned transfer order dated 15.01.2025 without reflecting any public interest and administrative exigencies, the petitioner along with 60 other persons was transferred from one place to another, (wherein name of the petitioner is reflected at serial No. 19; he is transferred from [2025:RJ-JP:5730] (2 of 3) [CW-1391/2025] Kotputli to Ramgarh, Alwar and petitioner was relieved from service on 16.01.2025). 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that the said transfer order is mechanical in nature and though transfer is incidental to service, but same cannot be effected without reflecting administrative exigencies and public interest or without allowing the TA/DA. 3. Additionally, reliance is placed upon Annexure-3 i.e. judgment passed by the Coordinate Bench of the Court at Principal Seat, Jodhpur in SBCWP No. 7268/2015, wherein the transfer order was quashed and set aside. 4. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondents has filed the reply and has submitted as follows:- (i) That the petitioner has only portrayed half picture. (ii) That clarification was issued on 15.01.2025, after passing of the transfer order, whereby it is reflected that the transfer was ordered on account of administrative exigencies and only after allowing the TA and other allowances as applicable. (iii) That present matter pertains to a group transfer order and not an individual transfer. (iv) That above-cited judgment is distinguishable as same was passed qua the post of Technical Helper. (v) That present transfer is not carried out on his own the discretion of the respondent-department or as per an individual authority, but on account of administrative exigencies and in the instant matter TA is duly given nevertheless, there is no chance of losing seniority by the petitioner. [2025:RJ-JP:5730] (3 of 3) [CW-1391/2025] 5. Heard and considered the rival arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties, scanned the record of the case and considered the settled position of law. Considering the overall facts and circumstances of the instant matter this Court is of the following view: (I) That transfer is incidence of service. (ii) That present transfer posting as per clarification was ordered on account of administrative exigencies along with allowances. (iii) That petitioner’s transfer was not carried out on his own request, but on account of the administrative exigencies, considering the history of posting and other factors like promotion. (iv) That the judgment relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner pertains to Technical Helper and is under distinguishable factual narrative. 6. Considering the above said, and taking note of the ratio passed by Hon’ble Apex Court in Shilpi Bose & Ors. Vs. State of Bihar & ors. reported in 1991 Supp (2) SCC 659, this court is not inclined to interfere in the present case. 7. Accordingly, present petition is dismissed. Pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of. (SAMEER JAIN),J Pooja /271