Rahul Shukla vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2021 Latest Caselaw 4674 MP

   1      THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                  Writ Petition No.15956/2021
            Rahul Shukla Vs. State of M.P. and others

Gwalior, Dated:25/08/2021

       Shri Sanjay Kumar Mishra, Advocate for petitioner.

       Shri MPS Raghuvanshi, Additional Advocate General for

respondents/State.

This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has

been filed seeking the following reliefs:-

"(i) That, the order annexure P-1 dated 06.08.2021 passed by respondent no.2 in serial no.1089/1919/2021/A-16 may kindly be quashed.

(ii) That, respondent no. 2 & 3 may kindly be further directed to consider representations submitted by petitioner for his transfer to Morena (M.P.) at the place of Shivpuri (M.P.) from Gwalior (M.P.)

(iii) That, Issue any other writ, order or direction in the nature of writ under article 226 of the Constitution of India, as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit in facts and circumstances of the case.

(iv) Cost of the petition may also be awarded."

It is submitted by the counsel for the petitioner that the

petitioner is working on the post of Labour Inspector and by the

impugned order dated 6/8/2021, he has been transferred from

Gwalior to Shivpuri. The wife of the petitioner is also posted in the

same office on the post of Welfare Supervisor. It is further submitted

that the petitioner and his wife are blessed with 14 months' old child

and it would be very difficult for his wife to take care of the child in

absence of the petitioner. The petitioner has filed a representation for

modification of his transfer order, but the said representation is still

pending consideration.

2 THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH Writ Petition No.15956/2021 Rahul Shukla Vs. State of M.P. and others

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner.

The petitioner in his entire writ petition has not clarified as to

whether the wife of the petitioner is on maternity leave / child care

leave or not. If she is already on maternity leave / child care leave,

then the petitioner cannot make a complaint that his wife cannot look

after the child on her own. It appears that the petitioner is posted in

Gwalior right from the date of his appointment. Furthermore, this

Court cannot act as an Appellate Court and it is for the employer to

look into the grievances of its employee. Accordingly, in the light of

the judgment passed by the Division Bench of this Court in the case

of Mridul Kumar Sharma Vs. State of M.P. reported in ILR [2015]

MP, 2556, it is directed that in case if the petitioner submits his

joining at the transferred place, then his representation shall be

considered and decided in accordance with law. The direction to

decide the representation should not be construed as a direction to

allow the representation and the representation shall be decided

strictly in accordance with law.

With aforesaid observations, the petition is finally disposed of.

(G.S. Ahluwalia) Judge Arun* ARUN KUMAR MISHRA 2021.08.26 16:54:21 +05'30'