Madhya Pradesh High Court
Ramesh Prasad Sharma vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 24 May, 2021
Author: Prakash Shrivastava
1
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
WP-9162-2021
(RAMESH PRASAD SHARMA VS STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH & ANOTHER)
JABALPUR
DATED : 24.05.2021
Shri D.K. Dixit, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Shri Dilip Parihar, learned Panel Lawyer for the
respondent/State.
Heard.
By this petition, the petitioner, who is working as
Forester/Deputy Ranger has challenged the order dated 01.04.2021
whereby he has been posted from Forest Range Mada to Circle
Waidhan, Forest Range, Waidhan.
Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the
petitioner has been transferred in the garb of local posting and that
the petitioner has only 16 months for retirement and that there is no
order of handing over or taking over of the charge and he has
suffered from Covid.
As against this, learned counsel for the respondent/State has
informed that the petitioner has been shifted to a short distance of 25-
30 kms and that it is not a transfer as it does not involve any change
of headquarter.
Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and on perusal
of the record, it is noticed that the counsel for the petitioner has failed
to point out any material to show that the impugned order involves
change in headquarter, therefore, he has not been able to demonstrate
that the impugned order results in transfer. A perusal of the order
reveals that it is in the nature of local shifting whereby the petitioner
has been given the charge of a different circle at a short distance of
25 kms. No violation of any statutory provision, rule or regulation
has been pointed out by the counsel for the petitioner. Even
otherwise, the impugned order is dated 01.04.2021 and thereafter
more than 1 ½ months have passed. Hence, in these circumstances,
no lawful ground is made out to interfere in the impugned order. The
record further reflects that the petitioner showing some personal
difficulty has made a representation (Annexure P/2) against the
impugned order. The said representation is required to be decided in
view of the Division Bench judgment of this Court in the matter of
Mridul Kumar Sharma Vs. State of M.P., 2015 (4) MPLJ 480.
Hence, the present writ petition is disposed of without
interfering in the impugned order but directing the respondent No.2
to take an appropriate decision on the petitioner's pending
representation in accordance with law as expeditiously as possible
preferably within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of
certified copy of this order.
C.c. as per rules.
(PRAKASH SHRIVASTAVA)
V.JUDGE
DV
DINES
Digitally signed by DINESH
VERMA
DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF
MADHYA PRADESH, ou=HIGH
COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH,
H postalCode=482001,
st=Madhya Pradesh,
2.5.4.20=474d1541b0f16f7d01
be81182229a5bd12bb327eabf
VERMA
f7385185cea3c0a4695a7,
cn=DINESH VERMA
Date: 2021.05.27 10:47:25
+05'30'
