Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Rajasthan · body

2026 DAILYLAW 11347 (RAJ)

RAJESH BHADU v. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

CW/17405/2026 · 2026-08-10

Yogendra Kumar Purohit

body2026

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

[2026:RJ-JP:38084] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 17405/2026 CNR: RJHC010756052026 | URN: CW / 30351U / 2026 Rajesh Bhadu S/o Shyo Prakash Bhadu, Aged About 33 Years, R/ o 79 Rb-B, Ganganagar, Rajasthan. ----Petitioner Versus 1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Principal Secretary, Information Technology And Communication Department, Govt. Of Rajasthan, Secretariate Jaipur. 2. Secretary-Cum-Commissioner, Information Technology And Communication Department, Govt. Of Rajasthan, Secretariate Jaipur. 3. Technical Director-Cum-Joint Secretary, Information Technology And Communication Department, I.t. Building, Yojna Bhawan Campus, Tilak Marg, C-Scheme, Jaipur, Rajasthan. 4. Kusum Ahuja, Information Assistant, Information Technology And Communication Department, Headquarter Jaipur, Rajasthan. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Vishal Jangid For Respondent(s) : Mr. Ravindra Choudhary, AGC for Mr. Nathu Singh Rathore, AAG HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE YOGENDRA KUMAR PUROHIT Order 10/08/2026 1. Learned counsel for the petitioner while placing reliance upon order dated 27.02.2025 passed by the Division Bench of this Court in D.B.Spl. Appl. Writ No. 332/2025, Pradeep Kumar Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors., submits that the wife of the petitioner is posted in District Hanumangarh and the petitioner has been transferred from Sriganganagar to District Jaipur. He also submits that it is the duty of the respondents that the petitioner be transferred to the [2026:RJ-JP:38084] (2 of 2) [CW-17405/2026] same place where his wife is working, who is also a Government servant. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is a low paid employee. In such situation, he submits that the petitioner may be permitted to file a representation before the respondents, which may be directed to be decided expeditiously. 2. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents opposed the aforesaid submissions and submits that due to administrative exigency the transfer has been made, but considering the grievance as raised by the petitioner, the petitioner is free to make a representation to the Department, which will consider the representation on the ground raised by the petitioner and this petition can be disposed of at this stage. 3. In view of the submissions made, the instant writ petition is disposed of with the direction to the petitioner to file a representation before the respondents for ventilating the grievance within a period of seven days from today and the same shall be decided within a period of fifteen days thereafter, by passing a speaking order strictly in accordance with law. 4. Till the decision of the representation, the impugned transfer order dated 08.07.2026 shall remain stayed qua the petitioner, if the petitioner has not joined at the new place of posting. 5. It is made clear that if the petitioner fails to file a representation within a period of seven days from today, the interim order granted by this Court shall stand vacated automatically. (YOGENDRA KUMAR PUROHIT),J 50/Rajesh Prajapat