Amitbhai Dineshchandra Parmar vs State Of Gujarat & Ors

Nirzar S. Desai, J

By way of the present petition, the petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs :-

“A. Your Lordships may be pleased to admit and allow this petition.

B. Your Lordships may kindly be pleased to issue a Writ of mandamus and/or any other appropriate writ order or direction in the like nature to quash and set aside the impugned order dated 10.12.2024 (Annexure - D) and show cause notice dated 19.02.2025 (Annexure - E) passed by the respondents in the interest of justice.

C. Your Lordships may kindly be pleased to direct the respondents to pay unpaid and regular salary and other benefits.

D. Pending the hearing and final disposal of this petition, your Lordships be pleased to stay the impugned order dated 10.12.2024 (Annexure - D) and show cause notice dated 19.02.2025 (Annexure - E) passed by the respondents in the interest of justice.”

As per the facts stated by learned advocate Mr. D. G. Chauhan, the petitioner was appointed as a Field Worker (A) vide order dated 3.1.1998 in the pay scale of Rs.950 – 1500 and was posted in the Malaria department of the Corporation and he is serving under the respondents since last more than 28 years. In the year 2008, the petitioner was suspended. However, the suspension was revoked and ultimately, vide order dated 6.4.2018, the petitioner was made permanent. Though the petitioner was working in Malaria department, vide impugned order dated 10.12.2024, he was transferred from the post of Field Worker of (Malaria Department) to the post of Attendant at Control room of Street Light department, which would completely change the cadre of the petitioner as well.

Thereafter, though the petitioner made an application for leave, the same was not sanctioned and thereafter, show-cause notice dated 19.2.2025 was also issued asking the petitioner to show-cause as to why punitive action should not be initiated against the petitioner for remaining unauthorizedly absent.

Hence, the petitioner has challenged the impugned order dated 10.12.2024 by which the petitioner was transferred from the post of Field Worker of (Malaria Department) to the post of Attendant at Control room of Street Light department as well as show-cause notice dated 19.2.2025 in the present petition.

Mr. D. G. Chauhan, learned advocate for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was serving as Field Worker in Malaria Department and he is not knowing anything about the control room of Street Light department and, therefore, transferring the petitioner to the Street Light department would not serve any purpose and thereby it would change the nature of the cadre of the petitioner.

However, Mr. Chauhan fairly submitted that pay scale of both the posts is the same.

Mr. Chauhan further submitted that though the petitioner has applied for leave, as the same was not approved, on account of compelling circumstances, the petitioner had to remain on leave. He, therefore, prayed that the present petition may be allowed by quashing and setting aside the impugned order dated 10.12.2024 by which the petitioner was transferred from the post of Field Worker of (Malaria Department) to the post of Attendant at Control room of Street Light department as well as show-cause notice dated 19.2.2025.

No other submissions were made by learned advocate Mr. Chauhan except recorded herein above and he has also not cited any decision of this Court or the Hon’ble Supreme Court.

The petition was opposed by learned Assistant Government Pleader Ms. Devanshi Patel for the respondent No.1 as well as learned advocate Ms. Kiran Udasi for Mr. Kamlesh Kotai for the respondent Nos.2 and 3. It was submitted by them that the petitioner cannot challenge the transfer order as it does not affect the service conditions of the petitioner. They further submitted that the post of Field Worker and Attendant are inter-transferable and pay scale of both the posts are also same. The petitioner has not been given any technical work on account of transfer and he has only been transferred in the control room to monitor the activities related to street light which cannot be said to be an absolutely different nature of work. They further submitted that the petitioner has in a way challenged the transfer order and show- cause notice and it is well settled by now that the transfer is an incident of service and, therefore, the Court unless the same is based on any malafides, which are not alleged in the present case, the Court would not interfere with the same. They further submitted that as far as challenge to the show-cause notice dated 19.2.2025 is concerned, the same is premature as it is also well settled by now that a show-cause notice unless culminated into a punitive order cannot be challenged. They further submitted that even otherwise also, the show-cause notice provides the petitioner either to give explanation to the show-cause notice or else, departmental proceedings would be initiated against the petitioner and though the show-cause notice was dated 19.2.2025, the present petition was affirmed on 2.8.2025 i.e. six months thereafter and the petition is silent about whether any action against the petitioner pursuant to the show-cause notice is taken or not. The Court specifically asked learned advocate Mr. Chauhan as to whether pursuant to the show-cause notice, the petitioner has given his explanation or not and any action is taken by the Corporation or not, learned advocate Mr. Chauhan fairly submitted that he does not have any instructions about the explanation given by the petitioner to the show-cause notice. However, he fairly submitted that as per instructions given to him, no action is taken against the petitioner pursuant to the show-cause notice dated 19.2.2025. Therefore, it is submitted by learned advocates appearing for the respondents that considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case, when it is a settled law that transfer is an incident of service, which has not resulted into any adverse consequences either in terms of salary or in terms of any other thing which could not be pointed out by learned advocate Mr. Chauhan and that no action has been taken against the petitioner as stated by learned advocate Mr. Chauhan, there is no case of interference either in respect of the order of transfer or in respect of the show-cause notice dated 19.2.2025 which can be said to have been made out by the petitioner and, therefore, the petition is required to be dismissed.

I have heard learned advocates appearing for the respective parties and perused the record. On perusal of the record, I found that the petitioner is transferred only from one department to other department i.e. from Malaria Department to monitor the Control room of Street Light department, which cannot be said to be a malafide transfer in absence of there being any material to indicate the malafides. It is a well settled law that the transfer is an incident of service. Further, the petitioner’s place of work has also remained the same and only the designation of the petitioner would change, but it has not resulted into any adverse financial consequences to the petitioner nor any other thing could be pointed out by learned advocate Mr. Chauhan which could have lead the Court to believe that there would be any adverse consequences related to any service condition related to the petitioner. Further, when there is nothing happened pursuant to the show-cause notice as stated by learned advocate Mr. Chauhan and he also does not have any instructions as to whether the petitioner has replied to the show-cause notice or not and when the show-cause notice dated 19.2.2025 is challenged before this Court in the month of August, 2025 i.e. after six months, I do not see any reason to interfere with the impugned order of transfer of the petitioner dated 10.12.2024 as well as the show-cause notice dated 19.2.2025. Accordingly, the present petition is required to be dismissed and the same is dismissed.