[2025:RJ-JP:7057] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2610/2025 Rati Ram Khatik S/o Shri Bhagi Rath Prasad, Aged About 56 Years, R/o Village Post Narainpur Tehsil Thanagadi, District- Alwar, Having Government Employee Id-Rjal201402028020. ----Petitioner Versus 1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Principal Secretary, Sainik Kalyan Vibhag, Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur. 2. State Of Rajasthan Through Secretary, Sainik Kalyan Vibhag, Secretariat, Jaipur. 3. The Director, Sainik Kalyan Vibhag, Room No. 7225, Food Building, Secretariat, Jaipur. 4. The District Sainik Kalyan Adhikari, Sainik Kalyan Vibhag, Opposite Company Bagh, Alwar, District Alwar- 301001. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Arpit Jain, Adv. Mr. Manish Bhardwaj, Adv. For Respondent(s) : Ms. Namita Parihar, Dy.GC HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SAMEER JAIN Judgment 18/02/2025 1. Heard and considered. 2. At the outset, it can be noted that the consideration regarding which employee should be posted ‘where’, falls purely within the administrative domain of the appropriate authority/department to decide, in the best interests of the working of the said department, whilst seeking to advance the department’s resultant output and service efficiency. By logical deduction, it is made rather obvious that no Government will be able to smoothly function if the Government Servants insist that [2025:RJ-JP:7057] (2 of 3) [CW-2610/2025] once appointed or posted in a particular place, they should continue at such place, as long as they desire whilst meeting out their individualistic and familial ease. The fact of the transfer being an indispensable part of an employee’s service is of paramount importance, which often loses favourability at the end of the employee, when they become comfortable with the place of their choosing. 3. It is noted that a government employee, posted at a location of their liking, does not have the fundamental protection to continue serving at the said location, especially in light of the fact that the incident of transfer, is a part and parcel of the conditions of service, when employed on a transferable post. It is true that the order of transfer often causes a lot of difficulties and dislocation in the family set up of the concerned employees but on that score alone, the order of transfer cannot be struck down. Administrative exigencies ought to prevail and/or take precedence over the familial and individualistic priorities of the employees posted on transferable jobs. The only eventuality, where the Courts may extend interference in transfer orders, is when the transfer orders violate an applicable statute or are passed on account of certain malice. 4. In the matter in hand it is noted that the authorities have passed a detailed order stating the administrative exigencies and other mandating circumstances due to which the petitioner/employee is transferred. However, learned counsel for the respondent has submitted that the petitioner has not joined at the new place of joining and the said fact is also conceded by the counsel representing the petitioner. It is also noted that as on date [2025:RJ-JP:7057] (3 of 3) [CW-2610/2025] the petitioner is drawing salary and pension from two employers/departments which accumulatively amounts to approximately Rs. 60,000/-. Withal, at the new place of posting of the petitioner i.e. Bheem the requisite staff is absent hence, severe operational and administrative shortcomings are faced by the respondent-Department. 5. In support of the aforesaid reliance can be placed upon the dictum of the Hon’ble Apex Court as enunciated in Shilpi Bose (Mrs.) and Ors. vs. State of Bihar and Ors. reported in 1991 Supp. (2) SCC 659, Varadha Rao vs. State of Karnataka and Ors reported in (1986) 4 SCC 131, Rajendra Roy vs. Union of India and Anr. reported in (1993) 1 SCC 148, National Hydroelectric Power Corporation Ltd. vs. Shri Bhagwan reported in (2001) 8 SCC 574 and S.K. Nausad Rahaman vs. Union of India and Ors. reported in (2022) 12 SCC 1. 6. In light of the aforementioned facts and circumstances of the matter, taking note of the contentions made by the counsel representing the respondents and being in-line with the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, this Court directs the petitioner to join at the ordered place of posting within a period of three days from passing of this order. It is made clear that in case of non-compliance of the directions of the Court, the respondents will be at liberty to pass appropriate orders/ take disciplinary actions against the petitioner-employee. 7. Accordingly, the present petition is dismissed with afore- stated directions. Pending applications, if any, shall stand disposed of. (SAMEER JAIN),J Ashwani Kr Srivastava /-219