CW/12294/2026 of VIKRAM SINGH LODHI S/O SHRI KAMAL SINGH LODHI Vs JAIPUR VIDYUT VITRAN NIGAM LIMITED on 28 July 2026

Order

28/07/2026

1. By filing this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the transfer order No. 1209 dated 10.07.2026 (Annexure-1), whereby he has been transferred from Tonk to Pirawa showing him to be under transfer to Tonk.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that initially the petitioner was transferred vide order No. 1202 dated 10.07.2026 from Deoli to Tonk. In furtherance of the said transfer order, the petitioner joined at Deoli on 11.07.2026 by submitting the joining

(2 of 4) [CW-12294/2026] report (Annexure-3) and also handed over the charge. He further submits that thereafter the petitioner joined at Tonk on 11.07.2026 itself and took over the charge. Learned counsel further submits that the petitioner has now been again transferred vide order No. 1209 said to be dated 10.07.2026, though the same has been issued on a subsequent date, whereby the petitioner has been shown to be under transfer to Tonk and now has been shifted to Pirawa. He further submits that the since the petitioner has already joined at Tonk in furtherance of the transfer order No. 1202 dated 10.07.2026 and the transfer order has now been executed, the respondents can neither modify the same nor cancel the same.

3. Mr. Sandeep Singh Shekhawat, Advocate appearing for the respondents submits that the petitioner is working at District-Tonk for last 16 years and has been transferred to Pirawa in administrative exigency. He further submits that the order under challenge has been issued on very same day i.e. on 10.07.2026 and therefore the alleged joining of the petitioner at new place of posting i.e. at Tonk on 11.07.2026 is of no consequence.

4. Considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned counsel for the respondents and perused the material made available on record.

5. As per the facts on record, the petitioner, who is working on the post of AEN, has been transferred from Deoli to Tonk vide order No. 1202 dated 10.07.2026. The petitioner has placed on record the charge handing over/taken over report dated 11.07.2026, whereby he has handed over the charge to the other person in the forenoon on 11.07.2026 and has also placed on

(3 of 4) [CW-12294/2026] record the report regarding taking over the charge at new place of posting i.e. Tonk dated 11.07.2026. The respondent is said to have issued another order No. 1209 dated 10.07.2026, whereby the petitioner has been shown to be under transfer to Tonk, has been now transferred to Pirawa.

6. Firstly, once a transfer order is issued and an employee is relieved from the place from where he has been transferred and also joined at new place of posting, the transfer order issued in relation to the employee stands executed. In opinion of this Court, once the transfer order stands executed by relieving an employee from the place of posting from where he has been transferred and joining at new place of posting, the said transfer order can neither be cancelled nor modified.

7. Secondly, the transfer of the petitioner from Deoli to Tonk was made vide order No. 1202 dated 10.07.2026 and vide another order No. 1209 dated 10.07.2026, the petitioner has been shown to be under transfer to Tonk and has been shifted to Pirawa. Issuing two orders for shifting a person at two different places that too in the name of the administrative exigency, does not seems to be convincing for the reason that either the respondents have not applied their mind while issuing the first transfer order or they have not applied their mind while issuing the second transfer order. If the transfer of the petitioner was made in administrative exigency after due application of mind vide order No. 1202 dated 10.07.2026 at Tonk, then what was need and that too for administrative exigency for shifting him to Pirawa. Looking to the facts on record and more particularly the fact that the petitioner, on next date i.e. 11.07.2026, has been relieved from Deoli and

(4 of 4) [CW-12294/2026] has taken over the charge at Tonk, prima-facie shows that the respondents have issued the subsequent transfer order No. 1209 dated 10.07.2026 on a later date in the name of the backdate, otherwise the Officers of the respondent-Corporation would not have taken over the charge at Deoli and thereafter handed over the charge at Tonk to the petitioner.

8. As far as the submission of the counsel for the respondents that the petitioner is working in the District-Tonk for last 16 years, it cannot be only a ground for transfer.

9. In view of the discussion made above, this Court is of the opinion that the impugned transfer order No. 1209 dated 10.07.2026 qua the petitioner is unjustified and deserves to be quashed and set aside.

10. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. The impugned transfer order No. 1209 dated 10.07.2026 (Annexure-1) qua the petitioner is quashed and set aside.

11. Stay application as well as pending application/s, if any, also stand/s disposed. (GANESH RAM MEENA),J Gaurav Srivastava/28