AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Heard learned counsel for the appellant as well as learned counsel for the respondents No.1 to 4.
The instant special appeal has been filed by the appellant/writ-petitioner under Rule 134 of the Rajasthan High Court Rules 1952 read with Article 225 of the Constitution of India challenging the order dated 18.08.2017 passed by learned Single Judge in SBCWP No.12987/2016, in which order of transfer was under challenge.
It emerges from the facts that order dated 24.10.2016 passed by Rajasthan Civil Services Appellate Tribunal, Circuit Bench, Jodhpur (Tribunal) dismissed the appeal filed by the appellant/writ-petitioner against the impugned transfer order dated 10.10.2016 was dismissed. The transfer order dated 10.10.2016 was passed by Additional Commissioner & Secretary, Rural Development and Panchayati Raj Department, Jaipur whereby the appellant/writ-petitioner who was working as Panchayat Extension Officer was transferred.
At the threshold learned counsel for the appellant submits that during pendency of the writ petition, stay order was operating against the impugned transfer order. In the writ petition, the order of learned Tribunal and transfer order dated 10.10.2016 were under challenge on various grounds but now in this appeal, the only ground taken by the learned counsel for the appellant is that the appellant/writ-petitioner is going to retire on 30.06.2018 on attaining the age of superannuation. Therefore, in view of judgment rendered by Division Bench of this Court in the case of
Dr. (Smt.) Pushpa Mehta Vs. Rajasthan Civil Services Appellate Tribunal & Ors. reported in 2000 (2) WLC (Raj.)
725, the appellant/writ-petitioner is entitled to remain at the place where he is working because he is going to retire on
30.06.2018.
Learned counsel for the respondent- State does not dispute the fact that the appellant/writ-petitioner is going to retire on
30.06.2018.
In view of above, we are of the opinion that the appellant/writ-petitioner who is at the verge of retirement, the respondents should give sufficient time to its employee so as to plan peacefully his/her post retirement life because it is legitimate expectation of the employee who has served the Department for major part of his/her life.
In view of above, while following the aforesaid judgment in the case of Dr. (Smt.) Pushpa Mehta (supra), the instant special appeal is hereby allowed only on the ground that the appellant/writ-petitioner is going to retire on 30.06.2018.
Accordingly, the order dated 24.10.2016 passed by Tribunal in Appeal No. 807/2016, transfer order dated 10.10.2016 and the order passed by learned Single Judge dated 18.08.2017 are hereby quashed with a further direction that the appellant/writ-petitioner may be allowed to work at the place where he was working prior to passing the transfer order dated 10.10.2016 till his superannuation.