- (1.) THIS intra -court appeal is directed against the order dated 05.03.2014, as passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1658/2014, which filed by the respondent No. 4 of this appeal against the transfer order dated 01.03.2014. The learned counsel Mr. L.S. Jodha, who had appeared for the writ -petitioner (respondent No. 4 in this appeal), has put in appearance in caveat. Though in this matter, the other respondents are not represented but the same had been the position before the learned Single Judge too, as the writ petition was decided on the first date of hearing without notice to any other respondent. Looking to the subject matter and overall circumstances, we have considered it just and proper to dispose of this intra -court appeal too at this stage itself, without notice to any other respondent.
(2.) THE relevant background aspects of the matter are that the contesting persons, i.e., the present appellant Shri Chandan Mal Sain (respondent No. 4 in CWP No. 1658/2014) and the present respondent No. 4 Shri Radhey Shyam Meena (writ -petitioner in CWP No. 1658/2014), are working on the post Nayab Tehsildar. Before passing of the impugned transfer order, which forms the subject matter of this appeal, the appellant Shri Chandan Mal Sain was posted as the Nayab Tehsildar, Tehsil Sangria, District Hanumangarh, whereas the respondent No. 4 Shri Radhey Shaym Meena was posted as Nayab Tehsildar, Hindumalkot, District Sriganganagar. By the impugned transfer order dated 01.03.2014, the appellant Shri Chandan Mal Sain was transferred as Nayab Tehsildar, Hindumalkot in place of respondent No. 4, who was, by the same order, transferred on the vacant post of Nayab Tehsildar, Suratgarh, District Sriganganagar. The respondent No. 4, who is said to be about 59 years of age and is approaching the age of superannuation, felt aggrieved of the transfer order dated 01.03.2014 and hence, preferred the writ petition leading to this appeal. The writ petition (CWP No. 1658/2014) came up for motion hearing before the learned Single Judge on 05.03.2014 and the present appellant, who was arrayed as respondent No. 4 in the writ petition, put in appearance by way of caveat.
(3.) IT appears from the impugned order dated 05.03.2014 that the learned Single Judge proceeded to examine two aspects of the matter. One had been the submissions on the part of the writ -petitioner that he was at the verge of the retirement and hence, the employers were was not justified in transferring him to another place of posting. A Division Bench decision of this Court in the case of Dr. Pushpa Mehta vs State of Rajasthan : 2000 (1) RLW 233 was referred in that regard. The second aspect that was placed before the learned Single Judge and was duly considered had been that the respondent No. 4 of the writ petition i.e., the present appellant, had in fact joined at the transferred place; meaning thereby, it was submitted on the part of the present appellant before the learned Single Judge that he had already joined at Hindumalkot, District Sriganganagar in place of the writ -petitioner. 6. As regards the contention on the part of the writ -petitioner that he was required to be retained on the present place of posting in view of his approaching date of retirement, the learned Single Judge considered it proper to dispose of the writ petition while giving a liberty to the writ -petitioner to file a representation before the competent authority within 15 days alongwith the copy of judgment in Dr. Pushpa Mehta's case (supra). The learned Single Judge also directed the competent authority to decide the said representation within a period of one month, keeping in view the decision of this Court. 7. As regards joining of the present appellant in place of the writ -petitioner, the learned Single Judge considered it proper to stay the effect and operation of the impugned transfer order dated 01.03.2014 and directed that the writ -petitioner shall be permitted to work at the place where he was working prior to the passing of impugned transfer order. However, the learned Single Judge also observed that at the time of deciding the representation of the writ - petitioner, the respondents would be expected to consider the fact of joining of the present appellant on the place of posting of the writ - petitioner. 8. The impugned order dated 05.03.2014, in its entirety, reads as under: - "Mr. Kuldeep Mathur has entered caveat on behalf of respondent no. 4 and submits that he has joined at transfer place. It may be true that respondent no. 4 has joined the duties. In this case, the petitioner is claiming his right to work at a place upon which he was working prior to passing transfer order on the ground that the Division Bench of this Court in case of Dr. Pushpa Mehta Vs. State of Rajasthan reported in RLW 2000 (1) page no. 233 held that those employees who are going to be retired within two years may be allowed to work at a place where he was working prior to passing of impugned transfer order. In view of above facts, this writ petition is disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to file representation before the competent authority within a period of fifteen days from the date of receiving certified copy of this order along with the judgment of Dr. Pushpa Mehta (supra) rendered by Division Bench of this Court and in the event of receiving such representation, the competent authority is directed to decide the representation of the petitioner to retain him at a place where he is working at present within a period of one month thereafter in the light of judgment rendered by Division Bench of this court in case of Pushpa Mehta (supra). Till decision of the representation of the petitioner, the effect and operation of order dated 01.03.2014 shall remain stayed and the petitioner shall be permitted to work at a place where he was working prior to passing of impugned transfer order. At the time of deciding representation of the petitioner, it is expected from the respondents that fact of joining of respondent no. 4 will also be considered." 9. Today, the learned counsel for the writ -petitioner (who is respondent No. 4 herein) has placed before us an order dated 10.03.2014, said to have been issued by the Collector, Sriganganagar in regard to postings of the disputants. It appears that in the said order, the learned Collector assumed that the High Court, in its order dated 05.03.2014 as passed in CWP No. 1658/2014, has set aside the transfer order dated 01.03.2014. The learned Collector, Sriganganagar has directed that the writ -petitioner shall join at the previous place of posting at Hindumalkot whereas the present appellant shall present himself at the Collectorate Headquarter, Sriganganagar. 10. After having heard the learned counsel for the parties on different aspects and angles related with this matter and having examined the purport and effect of the impugned order dated;