AMITBHAI DINESHCHANDRA PARMARversusSTATE OF GUJARAT

     C/SCA/12289/2025                                 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/03/2026




       IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

            R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO.12289 of 2025


FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE :


HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NIRZAR S. DESAI

=========================================
     Approved for Reporting Yes    No
                                   NO
=========================================
                        AMITBHAI DINESHCHANDRA PARMAR
                                     Versus
                            STATE OF GUJARAT & ORS.
=========================================
Appearance :
MR DG CHAUHAN for the Petitioner.
RONAK D CHAUHAN for the Petitioner.
MS DEVANSHI PATEL, AGP for the Respondent No.1.
MS KIRAN UDASI FOR MR KAMLESH S KOTAI for the Respondent Nos.2,3
=========================================

 CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NIRZAR S. DESAI

                               Date : 17/03/2026
                               ORAL JUDGMENT


1.               By way of the present petition, the petitioner has
prayed for the following reliefs :-


                 “A.    Your Lordships may be pleased to admit and

                 allow this petition.



                 B.     Your Lordships may kindly be pleased to issue

                 a Writ of mandamus and/or any other appropriate

                 writ order or direction in the like nature to quash

                 and set aside the impugned order dated 10.12.2024



                                        Page 1 of 6
     C/SCA/12289/2025                                    JUDGMENT DATED: 17/03/2026




                 (Annexure - D) and show cause notice dated

                 19.02.2025    (Annexure      -    E)   passed    by    the

                 respondents in the interest of justice.



                 C.     Your Lordships may kindly be pleased to

                 direct the respondents to pay unpaid and regular

                 salary and other beneFts.



                 D.     Pending the hearing and Fnal disposal of this

                 petition, your Lordships be pleased to stay the
                 impugned order dated 10.12.2024 (Annexure - D)

                 and show cause notice dated 19.02.2025 (Annexure

                 - E) passed by the respondents in the interest of

                 justice.”


2.               As per the facts stated by learned advocate Mr. D. G.
Chauhan, the petitioner was appointed as a Field Worker (A) vide
order dated 3.1.1998 in the pay scale of Rs.950 – 1500 and was
posted in the Malaria department of the Corporation and he is
serving under the respondents since last more than 28 years. In
the year 2008, the petitioner was suspended.                       However, the
suspension was revoked and ultimately, vide order dated 6.4.2018,
the petitioner was made permanent.                 Though the petitioner was
working in Malaria department, vide impugned order dated
10.12.2024, he was transferred from the post of Field Worker of
(Malaria Department) to the post of Attendant at Control room of
Street Light department, which would completely change the cadre
of the petitioner as well.


3.               Thereafter, though the petitioner made an application


                                     Page 2 of 6
     C/SCA/12289/2025                                   JUDGMENT DATED: 17/03/2026




for leave, the same was not sanctioned and thereafter, show-cause
notice dated 19.2.2025 was also issued asking the petitioner to
show-cause as to why punitive action should not be initiated
against the petitioner for remaining unauthorizedly absent.


                 Hence, the petitioner has challenged the impugned
order dated 10.12.2024 by which the petitioner was transferred
from the post of Field Worker of (Malaria Department) to the post
of Attendant at Control room of Street Light department as well as
show-cause notice dated 19.2.2025 in the present petition.


4.               Mr. D. G. Chauhan, learned advocate for the petitioner
submitted that the petitioner was serving as Field Worker in
Malaria Department and he is not knowing anything about the
control       room      of   Street    Light     department    and,     therefore,
transferring the petitioner to the Street Light department would
not serve any purpose and thereby it would change the nature of
the cadre of the petitioner.


                 However, Mr. Chauhan fairly submitted that pay scale
of both the posts is the same.


5.               Mr.    Chauhan       further    submitted    that   though      the
petitioner has applied for leave, as the same was not approved, on
account of compelling circumstances, the petitioner had to remain
on leave. He, therefore, prayed that the present petition may be
allowed by quashing and setting aside the impugned order dated
10.12.2024 by which the petitioner was transferred from the post
of Field Worker of (Malaria Department) to the post of Attendant at
Control room of Street Light department as well as show-cause


                                       Page 3 of 6
     C/SCA/12289/2025                                   JUDGMENT DATED: 17/03/2026




notice dated 19.2.2025.


6.               No other submissions were made by learned advocate
Mr. Chauhan except recorded herein above and he has also not
cited any decision of this Court or the Hon’ble Supreme Court.


7.               The    petition   was    opposed      by   learned      Assistant
Government Pleader Ms. Devanshi Patel for the respondent No.1 as
well as learned advocate Ms. Kiran Udasi for Mr. Kamlesh Kotai for
the respondent Nos.2 and 3.              It was submitted by them that the
petitioner cannot challenge the transfer order as it does not aKect
the service conditions of the petitioner.             They further submitted
that the post of Field Worker and Attendant are inter-transferable
and pay scale of both the posts are also same. The petitioner has
not been given any technical work on account of transfer and he
has only been transferred in the control room to monitor the
activities related to street light which cannot be said to be an
absolutely diKerent nature of work.               They further submitted that
the petitioner has in a way challenged the transfer order and show-
cause notice and it is well settled by now that the transfer is an
incident of service and, therefore, the Court unless the same is
based on any malaFdes, which are not alleged in the present case,
the Court would not interfere with the same. They further
submitted that as far as challenge to the show-cause notice dated
19.2.2025 is concerned, the same is premature as it is also well
settled by now that a show-cause notice unless culminated into a
punitive order cannot be challenged. They further submitted that
even otherwise also, the show-cause notice provides the petitioner
either to give explanation to the show-cause notice or else,
departmental proceedings would be initiated against the petitioner


                                    Page 4 of 6
     C/SCA/12289/2025                                   JUDGMENT DATED: 17/03/2026




and though the show-cause notice was dated 19.2.2025, the
present petition was aKirmed on 2.8.2025 i.e. six months thereafter
and the petition is silent about whether any action against the
petitioner pursuant to the show-cause notice is taken or not. The
Court speciFcally asked learned advocate Mr. Chauhan as to
whether pursuant to the show-cause notice, the petitioner has
given his explanation or not and any action is taken by the
Corporation or not, learned advocate Mr. Chauhan fairly submitted
that he does not have any instructions about the explanation given
by the petitioner to the show-cause notice.                 However, he fairly
submitted that as per instructions given to him, no action is taken
against the petitioner pursuant to the show-cause notice dated
19.2.2025.        Therefore,   it   is     submitted   by   learned     advocates
appearing for the respondents that considering the overall facts
and circumstances of the case, when it is a settled law that transfer
is an incident of service, which has not resulted into any adverse
consequences either in terms of salary or in terms of any other
thing which could not be pointed out by learned advocate Mr.
Chauhan and that no action has been taken against the petitioner
as stated by learned advocate Mr. Chauhan, there is no case of
interference either in respect of the order of transfer or in respect
of the show-cause notice dated 19.2.2025 which can be said to have
been made out by the petitioner and, therefore, the petition is
required to be dismissed.


8.               I have heard learned advocates appearing for the
respective parties and perused the record.                  On perusal of the
record, I found that the petitioner is transferred only from one
department to other department i.e. from Malaria Department to
monitor the Control room of Street Light department, which cannot


                                         Page 5 of 6
      C/SCA/12289/2025                                                              JUDGMENT DATED: 17/03/2026




 be said to be a malaFde transfer in absence of there being any
 material to indicate the malaFdes. It is a well settled law that the
 transfer is an incident of service. Further, the petitioner’s place of
 work has also remained the same and only the designation of the
 petitioner would change, but it has not resulted into any adverse
 Fnancial consequences to the petitioner nor any other thing could
 be pointed out by learned advocate Mr. Chauhan which could have
 lead the Court to believe that there would be any adverse
 consequences related to any service condition related to the
 petitioner. Further, when there is nothing happened pursuant to
 the show-cause notice as stated by learned advocate Mr. Chauhan
 and he also does not have any instructions as to whether the
 petitioner has replied to the show-cause notice or not and when the
 show-cause notice dated 19.2.2025 is challenged before this Court
 in the month of August, 2025 i.e. after six months, I do not see any
 reason to interfere with the impugned order of transfer of the
 petitioner dated 10.12.2024 as well as the show-cause notice dated
 19.2.2025.              Accordingly, the present petition is required to be
 dismissed and the same is dismissed.


                                                                                   (NIRZAR S. DESAI,J)


 SAVARIYA

Original copy of this order has been signed by the Hon'ble Judge.
Digitally signed by: RAJNISH NARENDRA SAVARIYA(HC00179), PRINCIPAL PRIVATE SECRETARY, at High Court of Gujarat on 17/03/2026 17:45:15




                                                        Page 6 of 6