[2026:RJ-JP:3939] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 867/2026 Sunil Yadav S/o Gurudayal Yadav, Aged About 37 Years, R/o Village Sihor, Tehsil Khetri, District Jhunjhunu Rajasthan At Present Posted As Technical Helper I O/o Aen (O And M), Jaipur Discom, Narehera, Kotputli Division, District Kotputli-Behror, Rajasthan ----Petitioner Versus 1. Jaipur Vidyut Vitran Nigam Limited, Through Its Chairman Cum Managing Director, Vidhut Bhawan, Jaipur (Rajasthan) 2. Superintendent Engineer, Jaipur Vidhyut Vitran Nigam Limited, Jaipur Discom, Kotputli, Rajasthan. 3. Executive Engineer (O And M), Jaipur Discom, Kotputli, Rajasthan. 4. Assistant Engineer (O And M), Jaipur Discom, Narehera, Jaipur Division, District Jhunjhunu, Rajasthan. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Sudhir Yadav For Respondent(s) : Mr. Ankur Srivastav HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SAMEER JAIN Judgment 28/01/2026 1. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner was appointed in 2010 and that while rendering services, the petitioner sustained a physical disability to the extent of 20%. It is submitted that petitioner is a low-paid worker and has been transferred during the period when the ban was imposed on issuance of the work arrangement order, for the financial year 2025–26. It is further submitted that due to the said transfer, the [2026:RJ-JP:3939] (2 of 3) [CW-867/2026] petitioner is facing serious and grave hardship. In this regard, learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon the dicta passed in D.B. Special Appeal (Writ) No. 609/2021, State of Rajasthan & Ors. vs. Achala Ram, decided on 01.12.2021; S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 14624/2017, Udai Singh vs. Ajmer Vidhyut Vitran Nigam Ltd. & Ors., decided on 18.01.2019; S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 15242/2017, Brahma Ram Solanki vs. Jodhpur Vidhyut Vitran Nigam Ltd. & Ors., decided on 08.01.2018; S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2695/2017, Mukesh Kumar vs. Ajmer Vidhyut Vitran Nigam Ltd. & Ors.; and S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 16248/2025, Kishana Ram vs. Board of Revenue & Ors., decided on 28.08.2025. 2. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents has contended that the respondent-department is a Public Utility Department. It is submitted that the interpretation of the work arrangement order dated 31.12.2025 and the order dated 08.01.2026, as sought to be quashed and set aside by the petitioner, is misconceived, as the said orders merely provide for transfer of the petitioner for a limited period of 90 days for the purpose of recovery of the respondent-Board’s dues from consumers. It is further submitted that the maximum duration of the said work arrangement is only up to the end of the financial year 2025–26. Although the work arrangement order qua petitioner was issued on 31.12.2025, considering the hardship of the petitioner, the matter was subsequently examined by the higher authorities and the same was kept under abeyance. 3. Heard. [2026:RJ-JP:3939] (3 of 3) [CW-867/2026] 4. It has been observed by this Court that considering the administrative exigencies, the said work arrangement order came to be issued, wherein the maximum duration of the said transfer was only up to 31.03.2026 i.e. merely for 90 days. 5. In view of the above as well as relying upon the 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, no inference against the said work arrangement order is warranted by this Court. 6. The writ petition stands dismissed in above terms. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of. (SAMEER JAIN),J JKP/s-161