Rajasthan High Court : UDA Commissioner Lacked Authority to Repatriate Officer | Transfer Under Section 336(2) Does Not Require Consent and Is Distinct From Deputation
Sanchayita Lahkar
The High Court of Rajasthan, Division Bench of Justice Dr. Pushpendra Singh Bhati and Justice Sandeep Taneja quashed the Udaipur Development Authority Commissioner’s order repatriating a municipal officer to his parent department, holding that the power to transfer lies solely with the State Government under Section 336 of the Rajasthan Municipalities Act, 2009. The Court observed that a transfer under Section 336(2) cannot be treated as deputation since the provision does not require the officer’s consent, which is essential for deputation, and that once such an order is issued, the officer is bound to join at the transferred place. The Bench directed the Commissioner to refer the matter to the State Government, which must decide on the transfer within 30 days.
The case arose from the transfer of Ravindra Gurjar, an officer originally serving as Junior Accountant in the Local Self Department and later promoted to Assistant Accounts Officer-II. By an order dated 20 September 2023, the State Government transferred him from the Municipal Council, Makrana to the Udaipur Development Authority (UDA), where he joined on 10 October 2023.
On 19 March 2025, the Commissioner of the UDA issued an order relieving Gurjar and repatriating him to his parent department. Gurjar challenged this order before the Single Judge of the High Court, contending that the Commissioner lacked authority to unilaterally repatriate him and that his original transfer was under Section 336 of the Rajasthan Municipalities Act, 2009, which does not amount to deputation. The Single Judge dismissed the petition, holding that the initial transfer was on deputation, and thus the UDA Commissioner had the power to repatriate him.
In appeal, Gurjar argued that his transfer was not deputation because Section 336(2) does not require the officer’s consent, a key element of deputation. He further contended that only the State Government had authority to transfer or repatriate him. The respondents maintained that since Gurjar retained lien in his parent municipality, the transfer was in the nature of deputation and the UDA Commissioner was competent to relieve him.
The Bench examined Sections 336 and 330 of the Rajasthan Municipalities Act, 2009, and Section 89 of the Udaipur Development Authority Act, 2023, as well as judicial precedents on deputation, to determine whether the transfer was a deputation or a regular transfer and who held the power to issue repatriation orders
Justice Sandeep Taneja, speaking for the Bench, noted: “The issue for consideration is as to whether the posting of the appellant from Municipal Council, Makrana to UDA by order dated 20.09.2023 issued by the State Government under Section 336 of the Act of 2009 was on transfer or deputation.”
The Court stated that “Section 336(2) of the Act of 2009 clearly discloses that the power to transfer an officer or servant of the Municipality... is conferred on the State Government.”
The Bench analysed the legal concept of deputation, referring to the Supreme Court’s decision in Umapati Choudhary v. State of Bihar (1999) 4 SCC 659, noting that “Deputation can be aptly described as an assignment of an employee... from one department or cadre to another, involving a tripartite agreement between the lending employer, borrowing employer, and the employee concerned. The concept of deputation is consensual and involves a voluntary decision.” The Court stated that one of the essential elements of deputation is the employee’s consent.
Applying this principle, the Court held that: “Once the State Government, in exercise of powers conferred in the aforesaid section, issues an order for transfer... the employee concerned has no option but to join the duty at the transferred place,” the judgment stated. It further clarified that “in the absence of consent, it cannot be said that transfer as provided under Section 336(2)... shall be a transfer by way of deputation.”
The Court rejected the respondents’ argument that the lien provision in the proviso to Section 336 implied a deputation. “It is well settled that function of a proviso is to carve out exceptions or to qualify something enacted in the main provision,” the Bench observed, adding that retention of lien alone does not make a transfer a deputation.
The Court also referred to Section 330 of the Act of 2009 and Section 89 of the Udaipur Development Authority Act, 2023. It recorded that Section 330 distinguishes between "transfer" and "deputation" by explicitly using both terms, while Section 336 uses only "transfer," indicating that the legislature intentionally avoided equating the two. Similarly, Section 89 of the UDA Act empowers the State Government to transfer UDA officers to other local bodies, thereby underscoring that such authority rests solely with the Government.
The Court stated: “It is only in the case of deputation that an employee can be repatriated at any time at the wish of either of the employers. However, since we have already held that transfer under Section 336 of the Act of 2009 is not a deputation... power to retransfer, recall or repatriate is also vested in the State Government.”
The Division Bench declared: “This Court is of the opinion that the order dated 19.03.2025 passed by the Commissioner, UDA, is without authority of law and the same is hereby quashed.” The Bench also set aside the Single Judge’s order dated May 9, 2025, which had upheld the repatriation.
“The Commissioner, UDA, may refer the matter for transfer of appellant to the State Government. The State Government is further directed to decide the matter expeditiously but not later than 30 days from the date of receipt of reference from the Commissioner, UDA.”
Advocates Representing the Parties
For the Appellant: Mr. Ankur Mathur, Ms. Divya Bapna
For the Respondents: Mr. Rajesh Panwar, Senior Advocate-cum-AAG with Mr. Ayush Gehlot, Mr. Vijay Purohit, Mr. Hanuman Singh, and Mr. Shubham Ojha
Case Title: Ravindra Gurjar v. State of Rajasthan & Anr.
Neutral Citation: 2025: RJ-JD:40135-DB
Case Number: D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 912/2025
Bench: Justice Dr. Pushpendra Singh Bhati,Justice Sandeep Taneja
