Mahesh Bhagwati, J. - (1.) BY way of the instant writ petition, the Petitioner has challenged the order dated 18.9.2010, whereby the Petitioner has been transferred from Deenwa Ladkhani, Sikar to Dalpatpura, Sikar.
(2.) HAVING heard the learned Counsel for the Petitioner, it is noticed that against the transfer order dated 18.9.2010, the Petitioner preferred an appeal before the Tribunal. The learned Tribunal placed reliance upon the judgment rendered by this Court in the case of Bhagwan Das Mittal v. State of Rajasthan and Ors. reported in, ILR 2007 502, admitted the appeal and rejected the stay application. Thus, the main appeal is pending before the Rajasthan Civil Services Appellate Tribunal and the Petitioner has filed the instant writ petition against the interlocutory order. Albeit, the Petitioner is found to have stated before the Tribunal that only two years are left in his retirement and with a view to accommodate Lekh Singh, he was transferred, conversely, a bare perusal of the order dated 14.10.2010 suggests that the retirement of the Petitioner is in the year 2013, while the retirement of Lekh Singh is in the year 2011. Thus, the condition of Lekh Singh is more pressing than that of the Petitioner.
(3.) IN number of cases, the Hon'ble Apex Court has consistently held that it is the duty of the employee to first report for work where he is transferred and make a representation as to what may be his personal problems. This tendency of not reporting at the place of posting and indulging in litigation needs to be curbed.;