Gajendra Singh Parihar V. The Union Of India and The Principal Chief Commissioner, Income Tax, Jaipur, Rajasthan

CW/36/2021

AI Insights

Gajendra Singh Parihar, an Income Tax Officer, challenged his transfer from Jaipur to Jodhpur, arguing it violated the transfer policy which favored accommodating officers at their preferred locations, especially those nearing retirement. The Central Administrative Tribunal dismissed his application, leading to this writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution. The petitioner contended that his transfer was not in line with the policy as he was due to retire soon and had specific locations in mind for his transfer. However, the respondents justified the transfer citing administrative needs and the petitioner's completed tenure. The High Court upheld the Tribunal's decision, emphasizing the administrative basis of the transfer and the shortage of officers in Jodhpur.

• Counselvise Citation: [2021] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 802639 (HC-RAJASTHAN)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 05-01-2021
• Assessment Year: misc
• Laws Referred To: Article 227 of the Constitution of India
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Assessee Lawyers: SANDEEP SHARMA
• Keywords: Transfer order; Administrative grounds; Mala-fide reasons; Transfer policy; Choice station
• Section: 3

Judgement Text

"HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 36/2021 Gajendra Singh Parihar Son Of H.S. Parihar, Aged About 57 Years, Resident Of A-190, Mahesh Nagar, Jaipur, Presently Posted As Income Tax Officer, Ward No. 6(3), Jaipur Group (B) ----Petitioner Versus 1. The Union Of India, Through Its Secretary, Ministry Of Finance, Department Of Revenue, Cdbt North Block, Delhi-110001. 2. The Principal Chief Commissioner, Income Tax, Jaipur, Rajasthan, New Central Revenue Building, Bhagwandas Road, Jaipur- Rajasthan 302005. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Sandeep Sharma Advocate through Video Conferencing. HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDRA KUMAR SONGARA Judgment / Order 05/01/2021 Petitioner has filed the petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the order dated 24.12.2020 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, whereby, original application moved by the petitioner challenging his transfer order dated 07.10.2020, was dismissed. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner is due to retire within three years. As per policy framed by the respondents relating to transfers, petitioner was liable to be accommodated on one of the choice station submitted by him. Transfer order has been passed in violation of the transfer policy. (2 of 3) [CW-36/2021] Parents of the petitioner are old and are suffering from various ailments. Petitioner is posted as Income Tax Officer, Group ‘B’ Post. It is the case of the petitioner that he was required to be transferred to a place of his choice in terms of the Annual General Transfer Policy. Para/Clause 3 of the policy Annexure-R/1 reads as under:- “3. Application for Transfer/Stay:- 3.1 All the officers shall be required to submit Application for Transfer/Stay in prescribed format before the AGT. 3.2 The officer shall be required to give his/her three “Choice stations” in order of his preference. The first choice shall be the preferred place of posting. In case an officer has chosen Category ‘D’ or ‘E’ station as one of his/her choice then the other two choices shall be from the Category ‘A’, ‘B’ or ‘C’ stations. 3.3 If an officer fails to submit his application for Transfer/Stay in prescribed format before the due date, it shall be presumed that the officer is having open choice for all the stations. 3.4 It shall be the endeavour of the Local Placement Committee to accommodate the officer at his first choice station. 3.5 If an officer cannot be accommodated at his first choice station, then it shall be the endeavour of the Local Placement Committee to accommodate him/her at one of his two choice stations subject to availability of the vacancies and administrative convenience. In case, it is not feasible to accommodate him/her at his choice stations due to non-availability of vacancies, he/she shall be accommodated to a nearer station to his/her choice stations. (3 of 3) [CW-36/2021] A perusal of the above para/clause reveals that every endeavour is to be made for placement of the officer at his place of choice station. Vide the impugned order dated 07.10.2020, petitioner has been transferred from Jaipur to Jodhpur. It was the case of the respondents in their reply before the Tribunal that the petitioner was due for transfer as he had completed his normal tenure of four years and nine months as on 31.03.2020. Petitioner had been transferred from Jaipur to Jodhpur as per the transfer policy and taking into consideration the vacancy position and acute shortage of officers at Jodhpur and on account of administrative requirement. Thus, as per the respondents, the transfer of the petitioner had been effected from Jaipur to Jodhpur on administrative ground and after he had completed his normal tenure at Jaipur. Learned counsel for the petitioner has failed to point out anything from record to establish that the transfer of the petitioner had been effected by the respondents on account of mala-fide reasons. Since the petitioner had been transferred on administrative grounds, learned Tribunal rightly dismissed the original application filed by the petitioner challenging his transfer order. No ground for interference is made out. Dismissed. (CHANDRA KUMAR SONGARA),J (SABINA),J Sanjay Kumawat-74 "