- (1.) MR . K.K. Bissa, learned Addl. Govt. counsel is directed to accept notice on behalf of the respondents.
(2.) AFTER perusing the grounds and the prayer clause of this writ petition, I am of the opinion that the controversy involved in this case is squarely covered with the judgment rendered by Coordinate Bench of this Court at Jaipur Bench, Jaipur in SBCWP No.13248/2009 (Mohan Lal Gurjar Vs. State & Ors.) decided on 15.12.2010 along with seven other writ petition wherein following adjudication was made :- "In the instant case, transfers impugned herein have been made on the recommendation of Zila Parishad as is evident from the minutes of the meeting placed on record, but no material has been placed by which this Court could infer that both the Panchayat Samiti from and to which petitioners have been transferred, were duly consulted before their transfers impugned being made by Zila Parishad, Karauli. Taking note whereof and in the absence of consultation as required U/s 89 (8) (ii) being made of both the panchayat samitis from and to which they have been transferred, in the opinion of this Court, the action of respondents authority is in violation of S.89(8) (ii) of Act, 1994. As regards submission about compliance of R.289 of Rules, 1996, suffice is to say that after the recommendations being made by Zila Parishad, further process in regard to transfer of the employees has to be carried out by the authority U/r 289 of Rules, 1996 but the respondents are under legal obligation to comply with requirement of law as provided in S.89(8) (ii) before the transfer is given effect to. Further submission made by Government Counsel that the petitioners could make a complaint by way of appeal to the State Government by invoking S.89 (8A) of the Act is also without substance for the reason that S.89 (8A) commences with non-obstante clause "Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-sec. (8)" and S.89(8A) confers powers upon State Government, obviously in the interest of administration of exigency, for transfer of any member of the service from one Panchayat Samiti to another one within same or outside the district, from one Zila Parishad to anoher Zila Parishad to a Panchayat Samiti and consultation as required U/s 89 (8) (ii) is not required to be made from transfer while invoking S.89 (SA) of Act, 1994. No doubt, S.89 (8A) confers power to stay the operation of or cancel any order of transfer made U/s 89 (8) or the Rules made thereunder but does not provide any remedy to a person affecting his right upon being transferred made without compliance of S.89 (8) (ii) or R.289 of Rules, 1996 of filing appeal to the State Government U/s 89 (8A) of the Act. Consequently, all the writ petitions succeed and are hereby allowed. Orders dt. 05/10/2009 of Zila Parishad, Karauli and dt. 16/10/2009 passed by Tribunal pertaining to transfers of petitioners impugned herein are hereby quashed and set aside. However, this order would not preclude respondents authority to pass fresh orders after due compliance of provisions under the law. No Costs." In view of above order, this writ petition is allowed. Consequently the transfer order dated 31.5.2012 and order dated 14.12.2012 passed by Raj. Civil Service Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur are hereby quashed and set aside with liberty to the respondents to pass fresh order after due compliance of provisions of law. No costs.;