Madhya Pradesh High Court
Gangaram Choudhary vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 10 November, 2021
Author: Vishal Mishra
1 WP-24483-2021
The High Court Of Madhya Pradesh
WP No. 24483 of 2021
(GANGARAM CHOUDHARY Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS)
1
Jabalpur, Dated : 10-11-2021
Shri Rahul Diwaker, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Shri Manoj Kushwaha, learned panel lawyer for the respondents/State.
Challenge is being made to the transfer order dated 31.08.2021
whereby the petitioner's services have been transferred from Goharganj to
Udaypura 200 Kms away on administrative grounds.
A specific ground is taken by the petitioner which is reflected in para
5.6, 5.7 and 5.8 that in pursuance to the transfer order dated 31.08.2021, the
petitioner has not been relieved till date, therefore, there is no administrative
exigency. It is submitted that he is still working and nobody has been
transferred and posted in place of the petitioner. It is further submitted that
the petitioner has preferred a detailed representation to the
respondents/Authorities but the same was kept pending and not being
decided till date. An innocuous prayer is made to get the representation
decided at an early date and as the petitioner has not been relieved, he may be
permitted to work at the present place of posting i.e. Goharganj.
Per contra, learned counsel for the State has opposed the prayer and
submitted that the transfer is a condition of service and the petitioner has
been transferred on administrative grounds, which is reflected from the
impugned order itself. He has placed reliance on judgment passed by the
Division Bench of this Court in the case of R.S.Choudhary Vs. State of
M.P. and others reported in ILR (2007) MP 1329 and Mridul Kumar
Sharma Vs. State of M.P. reported in ILR (2015) MP 2556 and submitted
that the only relief which can be granted to the petitioner is a direction to
decide the representation and if the petitioner prefers a fresh representation to
the respondent No.2 in pursuance to the transfer order, then the same will be
Signature Not Verified
SAN
considered and decided expeditiously.
Digitally signed by ANINDYA SUNDAR
MUKHOPADHYAY
Date: 2021.11.11 09:46:18 IST
2 WP-24483-2021
Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
T h e petitioner is subjected to transfer vide impugned order dated
31.08.2021 at Udaypura on administrative grounds. Although the law in
respect to the transfer is well settled and decided by the Division Bench of
this Court but the fact remains that even after the transfer order dated
31.08.2021 whereby, the petitioner was transferred on administrative grounds,
he has not been relieved till date, no justification is given by the counsel
appearing for the State.
Looking to the overall facts and circumstances of the case and also the
law laid down in the aforesaid cases, this Court deems it appropriate to
dispose of this writ petition with a direction to the petitioner to re-submit the
application/representation to the respondent No.2 within a period of seven
days from today and in case such representation is filed, the respondent No.2
is directed to dwell upon the same and pass a self-contained speaking order
redressing the grievances of the petitioner and communicate the outcome to
the petitioner within a period of 15 days from the date of receipt of certified
copy of this order. Till the decision on the representation, the petitioner is
permitted to continue at the present place of posting i.e. Goharganj, subject to
verification of the fact that he has not been relieved till date.
Needless to mention here that this Court has not expressed any opinion
on the merits of the case.
With the aforesaid observations, the petition stands disposed of.
(VISHAL MISHRA)
JUDGE
AM
Signature Not Verified
SAN
Digitally signed by ANINDYA SUNDAR
MUKHOPADHYAY
Date: 2021.11.11 09:46:18 IST
