The Supreme Court has extended relief to a senior judicial officer of the Rajasthan Higher Judicial Service Sh. Dinesh Kumar Gupta, by directing consideration of a favourable posting in the final phase of his service career.

The petitioner, who holds the rank of Principal District Judge, approached the Supreme Court through a writ petition raising grievances over his frequent transfers. He placed on record details of his past postings and submitted that the repeated transfers had caused personal and professional hardship.

On the arguments of Sr. Advocate Vikas Singh, while examining the matter, the Supreme Court observed that there was no reason to doubt that the petitioner’s earlier postings—first as a Member of the State Legal Services Authority and subsequently as Director (Law) in the Jaipur Development Authority—were based on his outstanding service record as a bright judicial officer. The Court categorically noted that these postings could not be termed as punitive in nature.

The Court, however, took note of the petitioner’s specific concern regarding his posting as District and Sessions Judge, Jalore. It was pointed out that the officer has only about ten months of service left before attaining the age of superannuation. The petitioner also highlighted serious health issues requiring constant medical treatment at Jaipur. Additionally, his wife, who is serving as a teacher in the Education Department, is also nearing retirement.

In view of these circumstances, the petitioner sought a posting near Jaipur on a position commensurate with the rank he presently holds. It was also brought to the Court’s notice that the petitioner had already submitted a detailed representation on 3 December 2025 before the competent authority.

Disposing of the writ petition, the Supreme Court requested the Acting Chief Justice of the Rajasthan High Court to consider the petitioner’s representation sympathetically and take an appropriate decision in consultation with the committee of judges constituted for administrative matters. The Court further expressed its expectation that a decision be taken within a period of two weeks.

With the disposal of the writ petition, all pending interlocutory applications were also disposed of.