SAW/874/2026 of JAIPUR VIDYUT VITRAN NIGAM LIMITED Vs VIKRAM SINGH LODHI S/O SHRI KAMAL SINGH LODHI on 11 August 2026

Order

11/08/2026

1. Issue notice to the respondent.

2. Learned counsel Mr. Laxmikant Malpura, accepts notice on behalf of the respondent.

3. The challenge in this appeal is to the order passed by the learned Single Judge whereby, the learned Single Judge has

(2 of 3) [SAW-874/2026] quashed the transfer order viz-a-viz the writ petitioner bearing No.1209 dated 10.07.2026.

4. Learned counsel appearing for the appellants submits that the transfer is an exigency of service and no right is either taken away or granted to any individual who is working with the Department. He submits that so far as the respondent is concerned, he has been transferred from Deoli to Tonk vide order dated 10.07.2026. However, upon finding mistakes and after considering other aspects, the writ petitioner was transferred and the earlier transfer was superseded by order No.1209 dated 10.07.2026.

5. Counsel has relied on an earlier order passed in D.B. Special Appeal Writ No.852/2026 wherein, we have stayed the order of the learned Single Judge by relying on the fact that merely because the earlier order had been complied with, no right is created and the power of transfer is always available with the employer. The mere fact of the respondent having joined on the basis of the first order of 10.07.2026 would not in any manner create any illegality in passing the subsequent order dated 10.07.2026.

6. The coordinate Bench in another D.B. Special Appeal Writ No.858/2026 has relied on the order passed in the D.B. Special Appeal 852/2026 and set aside the order of the learned Single Judge.

7. It is settled law so far as transfer is concerned, it is a purely administrative function and ordinarily, there can be no judicial review of a transfer order barring certain limitation. Some times, the orders are also set aside on compassionate ground or on the

(3 of 3) [SAW-874/2026] ground that a person may be due to retire within period of one year or that he may be suffering from severe health problems or that there is an allegation of malice.

8. In fact, in the present case, the learned Single Judge has set aside the transfer order on the ground of two orders having been passed on the same day. It is informed to us that so far as the respondent is concerned, he has undergone hip surgery on 08.10.2025 and is facing difficulty, but that would not deter us to uphold the order of learned Single Judge.

9. We notice that the respondent had accepted his transfer from Deoli to Tonk and had joined and if subsequently the order of transfer to Tonk has been kept in abeyance and he has been again transferred to Pirawa, he can also join Pirawa and it would not be an impediment on account of his health.

10. We also notice that the respondent has been working as Assistant Junior Engineer and then as Assistant Engineer at Tonk. Therefore, on that ground too he would not have any right or equity in his favour to remain in Tonk or in the vicinity thereto.

11. The order passed by the learned Single Judge, therefore, cannot be sustained, the same is accordingly set aside. The appeal is accordingly allowed.

12. The respondent shall now join at Pirawa. However, he may make any representation if he so chooses which would be considered sympathetically by the Department.

13. All pending applications also stand disposed of.

(CHANDRA SHEKHAR SHARMA),J (SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA),ACTING CJ Gaurav/Riya/6