Vishan Singh Rajput vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2021 Latest Caselaw 8194 MP

                               1
          THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                         WP-26209-2021
           Vishan Singh Rajput Vs. State of MP and ors.

Gwalior, Dated : 03-12-2021

      Shri Shyam Sharma, Counsel for the petitioner.

      Shri A.K. Nirankari, Counsel for the State.

      This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has

been filed seeking following relief:-

               "(i) That, the impugned transfer order dated
        10.11.2021 passed by the respondent no. 2 may kindly

be quashed.

(ii) That, any other just, suitable and proper relief, which this Hon'ble Court deems fit, may also kindly, be granted to the petitioner. Costs be also awarded in favour of the petitioner."

The petitioner has taken a solitary ground that since the

petitioner is suffering from slip disc and he has been advised not to

drive the motorcycle, therefore, it is not possible for the petitioner to

carry out the transfer order. The petitioner has also filed a

representation against the transfer order, but no decision has been

taken so far. Accordingly, it is prayed that the respondents be directed

to decide the representation as early as possible.

Per contra, the petition is vehemently opposed by the counsel

for the State. It is submitted that the transfer is an exigency of service

and no one can claim that he should be posted at a particular place.

Heard the learned counsel for the parties.

A solitary ground which has been raised by the counsel for the

petitioner is that the petitioner is suffering from slip disc and he has

THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH WP-26209-2021 Vishan Singh Rajput Vs. State of MP and ors.

been advised not to drive the motorcycle.

So far as the personal difficulty of an employee is concerned, it

is well established principle of law that this Court cannot act as an

Appellate Authority. It is for the employer to consider the difficulty

of its employee. The petitioner has already preferred a representation.

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 MP and others reported in ILR (2015) MP 2556, it is directed

that in case, if the petitioner files a fresh representation after joining

at the transferred place, then the same shall be decided as early as

possible without getting influenced or prejudiced by this order.

Needless to mention here that the direction to decide the application /

representation should not be construed as a direction to allow the

representation and the said representation shall be decided strictly in

accordance with law on its own merits.

With aforesaid observations, the petition is finally disposed of.

(G.S. Ahluwalia) Judge Arun* ARUN KUMAR MISHRA 2021.12.04 15:48:29 +05'30'