Raghuveer Pawar vs The State Of M.P.
2021 Latest Caselaw 737 MP

                                   1
         THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                       W.P.No.2721/2021
          (Raghuveer Pawar Vs. State of M.P. and others )

Gwalior, Dated:-16.3.2021
      Shri R.K.Soni, learned counsel for the petitioner.

      Shri Jitesh Sharma,       learned     Govt. Advocate for the

respondent/State.

The present petition has been filed by the petitioner

challenging the order dated 12.1.2021 Annexure P/1 and 13.1.2021

Annexure P/2 passed by the respondent no.1, whereby he has been

transferred from Nagar Parishad Mungawali District Ashoknagar to

Nagar Parishad Kurwai District Vidisha.

It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that he

is holding the post of Sanitary Inspector in Nagar Parishad

Mungawali. It is further submitted that the petitioner and other person

of Municipality taken some loan from the Dark Credit and Capital

Limited Jaipur and the monthly installment deducted by the

respondent no.2 from the salary account of the petitioner. It is

submitted that the respondent no.2 deducted the amount from the

petitioner account, but has not been transferred to the Dark Credit and

Capital Limited Jaipur by the respondent no.2 and thereafter the

petitioner along with other persons submitted application before the

respondent no.2 and due to such complaint the respondent no.1 and 2

passed the order of transfer of the petitioner. Learned counsel for the

petitioner submits that the wife of the petitioner is suffering from

THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH W.P.No.2721/2021 (Raghuveer Pawar Vs. State of M.P. and others )

Hyper Tension and the child of the petitioner namely Ashutosh

studying in Class X and daughter is studying in Class XI at

Mungawali. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the

decision in the case of Suresh Kumar Sharma Vs. Municipal

Corporation and others, 1994 JLJ 479 and argued that the petitioner

has already submitted a detailed representation vide Annexure P/7

before the competent authority, but the representation is still pending

and no decision has been taken by the competent authority.

Per contra counsel for the State has opposed the petition and

argued that transfer is a routine course of service and the employee

working in a government department has to comply with the transfer

orders. As far as the violation of guidelines issued by the Government

is concerned, he has relied upon the judgment passed by the Division

Bench of this Court in the case of R.S. Chaudhary Vs. State of M.P.,

ILR (2007) M.P.1329 and has argued that the petitioner is having a

remedy to file a representation to the authorities and the same will be

considered and dealt with in accordance with law. He has further

relied upon the judgment passed by the Division Bench of this Court

in the case of Mridul Kumar Sharma Vs.State of M.P. ILR (2015)

MP 2556, wherein it is held that transferred employee is required to

submit his joining at the transferred place and thereafter his

representation was directed to be considered. In the present case, by

THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH W.P.No.2721/2021 (Raghuveer Pawar Vs. State of M.P. and others )

the impugned order the petitioner has already been transferred and

relieved from his present place of posting. In such circumstances, no

interference is called for. The transfer of the petitioner is purely on

administrative grounds. The interference in transfer order can be made

only on three counts i.e. in-violation of any statutory rules or

provisions, in case of any malafides being alleged. The petitioner

could not point out any of the grounds for challenging the transfer

order. In such circumstances no interference can be made in the

transfer order. He has prayed for dismissal of the writ petition filed by

the petitioner.

Heard the learned counsel for the parties.

As far as the law with respect to the transfer is well settled as

has been held in the case of R.S. Chaudhary (supra), wherein it is

held:

"35. ... In view of the aforesaid pronunciation of law by the Apex Court in several cases, which we have referred hereinabove, we are of the considered opinion that the transfer policy formulated by the State is not enforceable as the employee does have a right and the Courts have limited jurisdiction to interfere in the order of transfer. The Court can interfere if there is violation of mandatory statutory rule or if the action of the Government is capricious, malicious, cavalier and fanciful. What would constitute these components that would depend on facts of each case as the same can be neither illustratively or exhaustively stated. In fact, that is not warrantable to be stated. We proceed to hold that in case an

THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH W.P.No.2721/2021 (Raghuveer Pawar Vs. State of M.P. and others )

order of transfer is assailed on the ground that there has been violation of the policy, the proper remedy is to approach the authorities by pointing out the violation and it is expected of the authorities to deal with the same keeping in mind the policy guidelines with utmost objectivity."

In the case of Mridual Kumar (supra), it has been held as under:

"5. Be that as it may, in the present case, it is not as if the two writ petitions were kept pending and inconsistent "interim relief" granted therein. In fact, both the writ petitions have been finally disposed of. However, in one case limited protection has been given to the writ petitioner therein by another Bench. In our opinion, in the light of the principle expounded by the Supreme Court, referred to above, the Court must eschew from issuing such direction

- as it inevitably results in dictating the concerned Authority in respect of administrative matter within his domain. Accordingly, the decision pressed into service, cannot be treated as a binding precedent on the matter in issue and will be of no avail to the appellant."

The transfer order is of January, 2021 and the petitioner must

have already relieved by the respondents, therefore, no interim relief

can be granted. Considering the overall facts and circumstances of the

case and in view of the law laid down in the case of R.S. Chaudhary

(supra) and Mridul Kumar Sharma (supra), this petition is

disposed of with a direction to the petitioner to re-submit the detailed

representation to the Chief Municipal Officer, Nagar Parishad,

Mungawali, District Ashoknagar in the light of the decision in the

THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH W.P.No.2721/2021 (Raghuveer Pawar Vs. State of M.P. and others )

case of Suresh Kumar Sharma (supra) within a period of seven

working days from today and in turn the Chief Municipal Officer,

Nagar Parishad, Mungawali, District Ashoknagar is directed to

consider and dwell upon the representation submitted by the petitioner

and take a final decision within a period of one month from the date of

receipt of certified copy of this order.

Needless to say that this Court has not commented upon the

merits of the case.

Accordingy, petition stands disposed of. No order as to costs.

E-copy/certified copy as per rules/directions.

(Vishal Mishra) Judge Pawar*

ASHISH PAWAR 2021.03.18 13:29:04 +05'30'