Madhya Pradesh High Court
Riyaz Ahmad vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 8 March, 2021
Author: Chief Justice
1 WA-253-2021
The High Court Of Madhya Pradesh
WA-253-2021
(RIYAZ AHMAD Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS)
Jabalpur, Dated : 08-03-2021
Smt. Shobha Menon, Senior Advocate with Shri Rahul Choubey,
learned counsel for the Petitioner.
Shri Siddharth Sharma, learned Panel Lawyer for the
respondents/State.
This writ petition is directed against the judgment of the learned Single
Judge whereby the writ petition filed by the petitioner challenging the order of
his transfer dated 02.09.2020 from Guna to Gwalior has been dismissed.
The contention of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner is
that the petitioner had been working at Guna since 2007 and that considering
the length of his service, the order was passed under Section 55(1) of the
M.P. Cooperative Societies Act, 1960 by the Commissioner-cum-Registrar,
Cooperative Societies, Govt. of M.P., Bhopal to absorb the services of the
petitioner and one another employee Manoj Sharma, both being Branch
Managers, on the post of Secretary (Grade-C) of the Krishi Upaj Mandi
Samiti. The order aforesaid has not been given effect to and that this Court, in
W.P. Nos.5689/2017 and 8789/2017 filed by those two employees, vide
judgment dated 07.02.2019, had directed the respondents to consider the
case of the petitioners in terms of the order dated 08.01.2019 subject to
fulfillment of the conditions mentioned therein. It is contended that instead of
taking a decision on that, the respondents, with a malafide intention, had
transferred the petitioner from Guna to Gwalior only with a view to frustrating
the order dated 08.01.2019 so that the continuity of the petitioner's services is
lost in the District Cooperative Agriculture and Rural Development Bank. It is
contended by the counsel for the petitioner that the learned Single Judge,
though taken note of the fact that the order passed by another learned Single
Bench dated 07.02.2019 has become final, has yet granted further six months'
time to the respondents to comply with the aforesaid order but at the same
2 WA-253-2021
time not interfered with the order of transfer of the petitioner. It is argued that
the consideration of administrative exigency would not apply to the case like
the present one.
Shri Siddharth Sharma, learned counsel appearing for the respondents
opposes the writ petition and submitted that the learned Single Judge has
rightly granted time of six months to the respondents to take a decision as to
the order passed by the Registrar on 08.01.2019 and that the petitioner cannot
have any legal right to continue at the same place for as long as 13 years. The
transfer has been made in the exigency of the services.
Having regard to the fact that the Registrar, Cooperative Societies,
Govt. of M.P., Bhopal has taken a decision to absorb the petitioner and
another employee Manoj Sharma and that this Court had passed an order for
such absorption more than two years ago and the compliance of the aforesaid
order having not been made yet, we deem it appropriate to dispose of the
petition with a direction to the respondents to now take a final decision on the
issue of absorption of the petitioner in service within a period of one month
from the date of production of copy of this order. It would be obligatory for
the petitioner to produce the copy of this order before the competent
authority - the Managing Director, who also appears to be the Commissioner
of the M.P. State Agriculture Marketing Board, within a period of one week.
Pending disposal on the representation, the appellant shall be allowed
to continue at Guna.
Accordingly, the writ petition stands disposed of.
C.c. as per rules.
(MOHAMMAD RAFIQ) (VIJAY KUMAR SHUKLA)
CHIEF JUSTICE JUDGE
Priya.P
Signature Not Verified
SAN
Digitally signed by priyanka pithawe mishra
Date: 2021.03.10 17:14:22 IST
