[2025:RJ-JP:5709] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2237/2025 Yash Choudhary Son Of Shri Satyanarayan Choudhary, Aged About 34 Years, Resident Of Plot 852, Ram Nagar, Shashtri Nagar, Jaipur. ----Petitioner Versus 1. Jaipur Vidyut Vitran Nigam Limited, Through Chief Managing Director, Vidyut Bhawan, Jyoti Nagar, Jaipur. 2. The Secretary (Admn), Jaipur Vidyut Vitran Nigam Limited, Vidyut Bhawan, Jyoti Nagar, Jaipur. 3. Executive Engineer (O And M), Jaipur Vidyut Vitran Nigam Limited, Sub Division, Shahpura, District Jaipur. 4. Assistant Engineer (O And M), Jaipur Vidyut Vitran Nigam Limited, Neem Ka Thana Road, Shahpura, District Jaipur. 5. Shri Mahesh Kumar Yadav, Junior Engineer, Under Transferred And Posted At Sub Office, Kanth Under Aen (O And M) Shahpura, District Jaipur. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Pradeep Kalwaniya For Respondent(s) : Mr. Sandeep Singh Shekhawat HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SAMEER JAIN Judgment 10/02/2025 1. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that petitioner has challenged the order dated 15.01.2025 issued by the respondents whereby petitioner was transferred from District Jaipur to Raghunathpura, which is 310 Kms. away. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted as follows:- [2025:RJ-JP:5709] (2 of 3) [CW-2237/2025] (I) That petitioner and his wife (spouse) are both working in respondent-Department and as per the spouse policy, they may be transferred/kept at same place. (ii) That petitioner’s parents are suffering from severe health issues. (iii) That petitioner is already relieved vide order dated 18.01.2025 and had also joined at the latest place of posting. (iv) That petitioner is transferred to accommodate someone else and it is not the case of administrative exigencies. 3. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents has submitted as follows:- (I) That petitioner as per history of posting was serving at Jaipur for a period of approximately 10 years along with his spouse and policy of spouse was duly considered. (ii) That as per his instructions, there are certain audit objections, and considering the same, the said transfer order is passed. (iii) That the said transfer is made on account of administrative exigencies and being a public utility department, respondents are entitled to transfer the petitioner in the larger public interest. 4. Heard and considered the rival submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, scanned the record of the case and analyzed the settled position of law. 5. It is noted that respondent-Department is a public utility department; that the history of posting suggests that approx. for period of 10 years, petitioner was at Jaipur and judgment passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Shilpi Bose & Ors. Vs. State of Bihar & ors. reported in 1991 Supp (2) SCC 659, [2025:RJ-JP:5709] (3 of 3) [CW-2237/2025] suggests that transfer is incidence of service, nevertheless, the petitioner is already relieved vide order dated 18.01.2025. 6. In the facts and circumstances, 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. Howsoever, the petitioner is at liberty to file a representation specifying his hardships, within a period a seven days before the competent authority, who will adjudicate the same within 15 days, thereafter. (SAMEER JAIN),J Pooja /144