Akhilesh Kumar Dubey vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2021 Latest Caselaw 8381 MP

          HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH,
                BENCH AT GWALIOR

                    WP No. 25040/2021
  (    Akhilesh Kumar Dubey Vs The State of M.P. & others)
                                   (1)

Gwalior, dated : 07/12/2021
       Shri B.S. Gour, learned counsel for the petitioner.
       Shri R.P. Singh, learned Government Advocate for the
respondents-State.

Shri Rinkeh Goyal, learned counsel for respondent Nos. 2 and 3.

Challenge is being made to the transfer order dated

06/08/2021, whereby the petitioner who is holding the post of

Testing Assistant on Samvida basis has been transferred from 33/11

KV Sub Centre, Dakbangla, East area, City Shivpuri to 33/11 K.V.,

Sub Centre Chharch, Pohari-Second D.C.

It is argued that petitioner has been frequently transferred. On

earlier occasion vide order dated 18/09/2020 the petitioner was

transferred from Daak Bungalw Sub Centre to New Block and prior

to that he had been transferred vide order dated 20 April, 2021 and

again he had been transferred vide order dated 30 April, 2021,

therefore, the petitioner is being harassed for the reason best known

to the Authority. There are as many as four transfer orders of the

petitioner in a short span of time. It is pointed out that representation

against the transfer order has been filed, which is pending for

consideration and has not been decided till date, therefore,

innocuous prayer is made to direct the respondent Authorities to

consider and decide the pending representation and till then,

petitioner be allowed to work at the present place of posting. He has

placed reliance upon the judgment passed by the Supreme Court in

the case of Namrata Verma Vs State of U.P decided on 6th HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH, BENCH AT GWALIOR

WP No. 25040/2021 ( Akhilesh Kumar Dubey Vs The State of M.P. & others)

September, 2021 and also in the case of B. Varadha Rao Vs State

of Karnataka and others reported in 1986 volume 4 SCC 131 and

argued that the factum of frequent transfer order was considered by

the Supreme Court and aforesaid practice was deprecated by the

Supreme Court.

Per contra, counsel for the State as well as counsel for

respondent No.2 and 3 appeared on advance notice has vehemently

opposed the contention and it is argued that in pursuant to order

dated 06/08/2021 petitioner has already been relieved. It is not the

transfer order, it is only an attachment order within the same district.

It was passed in the month of August, 2021 and petitioner should

have complied the aforesaid order but the petitioner had not

complied the aforesaid order. He has already been relieved . The

petition was filed after considerable delay on 12/11/2021, therefore,

the only relief can be extended to the petitioner is to direct the

Authorities to consider the representation filed by the petitioner in

terms of judgment passed by the Division Bench in the case of

Mridul Kumar Sharma Vs. State of M.P. and others reported in

ILR (2015) MP 2556, wherein the court has held that for violation

of the conditions of Transfer Policy, the only remedy available to

the petitioner is to get his representation decided. Only personal

inconveniences have been pointed out by the counsel for the

petitioner against the transfer order, therefore, prays for dismissal of HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH, BENCH AT GWALIOR

WP No. 25040/2021 ( Akhilesh Kumar Dubey Vs The State of M.P. & others)

the petition.

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perusal of the record.

It is seen that by the impugned order petitioner has already

been attached at a different place at Pohari at a short distance of 30

km. There is no transfer order. The aforesaid order was passed in the

month of August, 2021. It is pointed out that the petitioner has

already been relieved in pursuance to the impugned order, therefore,

no interim relief can be extended to the petitioner.

As far as claim of the petitioner in respect of decision of

representation is concerned, this court thinks it fit to dispose of writ

petition with direction to the petitioner to file a certified copy of the

order passed today before respondent Nos. 2 and 3, who in turn is

directed to dwell upon the representation filed by the petitioner and

pass a self contained speaking order and communicate the outcome

to the petitioner within a period of 15 days from the date of receipt

of certified copy of the order passed today in the light of judgment

passed by Division Bench in the case of Mridul Kumar Sharma

Vs. State of M.P. (Supra). Petitioner is directed to comply with

impugned order and join at the transferred place of posting forthwith.

With the observation, this petition stands disposed of.

(Vishal Mishra) Judge Prachi*

PRACHI MISHRA 2021.12.09 10:48:08 +05'30'