Usha Dubey vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2021 Latest Caselaw 6279 MP

           THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH

                    Writ Petition No.19908 of 2021
        (Usha Dubey Vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh and others)


Jabalpur, Dated : 01.10.2021

      Shri Praveen Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioner.

      Shri Sanjeev K. Singh, learned panel lawyer for the

respondents/State.

Challenge being made to the transfer order dated 03.09.2021

passed by the respondent No.1, whereby the petitioner has been

transferred from Women and Child Development Department District

Rewa to Women and Child Development Department District Sidhi.

The challenge is made on three grounds that the petitioner is a

chronic heart patient continuously under treatment since 2017. The

husband of the petitioner has recently passed away during this Covid

pandemic. Third ground is that she is having small children and

except the petitioner there is no one in the family to take care of her

children. She is aged about 58 years and due to retire in the near

future, therefore, considering all the difficulties which have been

faced by the petitioner, the transfer order is assailed by her. A detailed

representation is being filed by the petitioner which is pending

consideration before the respondents/authorities. An innocuous prayer

is made that the respondents/authorities be directed to consider and

decide the pending representation and till then, the petitioner may be

permitted to continue at the present place of posting i.e Women and

Child Development Department, District Rewa. It is submitted that

the petitioner is still working and has not been relieved, therefore, she

may be permitted to work at the present place of posting THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH

Writ Petition No.19908 of 2021 (Usha Dubey Vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh and others)

Per contra, learned counsel for the State has opposed the prayer

and submitted that the transfer is condition of service and the

petitioner's transfer is on administrative grounds. It is submitted that a

Government employee is duty bound to comply with the transfer

order. Petitioner is working since long at the present place of posting,

therefore, she is duty bound to comply with the transfer order.

Grounds which have been raised by the petitioner are personal

inconveniences, on the basis of which transfer order cannot be

interfered. She has been transferred at a distance of 100 Kms. He has

relied upon the judgment of 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 in such

circumstances the only relief which can be extended to the petitioner

is to direct the respondents/authorities to consider and decide the

pending representation.

Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the

record.

It is seen from the record that the petitioner has been

transferred at a distance of 100 kms. The transfer is a condition of

service and the petitioner has been transferred on administrative

exigencies. No grounds have been raised by the petitioner on which

the interference in the transfer order can be made. All the grounds

which have been raised by the petitioner are mere personal THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH

Writ Petition No.19908 of 2021 (Usha Dubey Vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh and others)

inconveniences and looking to the judgments passed by the Division

Bench of this Court in the case of R.S.Choudhary (supra) wherein it

is held as under :-

"Transfer Policy formulated by State is not enforceable as employee does not have a right and courts have limited jurisdiction to interfere in the order of transfer. Court can interfere in case of mandatory statutory rule or action is capricious, malicious, cavalier and fanciful. In case of violation of policy, proper remedy is to approach authorities by pointing out violation and authorities to deal with the same keeping in mind the policy guidelines."

and in the case of Mridul Kumar (supra) wherein it is held as

under :-

"Transfer of a Government servant appointed to a particular cadre of transferable posts from one place to other is an incident of service. No Government servant or employee of public undertaking has legal right for being posted at any particular place. Transfer from one place to other is generally a condition of service and the employee has no choice in the matter. Transfer from one place to other is necessary in public interest and efficiency in the Public Administration. Whenever, a public servant is transferred he must comply with the order but if there be any genuine difficulty in proceeding on transfer it is open to him to make representation to the competent authority for stay, modification, or cancellation of the transfer order. If the order of transfer is not stayed, modified, or cancelled the concerned public servant must carry out the order of transfer. If he fails to proceed on transfer in compliance to the transfer order, he would expose himself to disciplinary action under the relevant Rules, as has happened in the instant case. The respondent lost his service as he refused to comply with the order of his transfer from one place to the other."

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

respondents/authorities to consider and decide the pending THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH

Writ Petition No.19908 of 2021 (Usha Dubey Vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh and others)

representation at an early date.

In such circumstances, this Court deems it appropriate to

dispose of this writ petition with a direction to the petitioner to file a

fresh representation before the respondent No.1 within a period of

seven days from today and in case such representation is filed, the

respondent No.1 is directed to dwell upon the same and pass a self

contained speaking order within a period of 15 days from the date of

receipt of certified copy of this order and communicate the outcome

to the petitioner within the stipulated time.

Needless to say that this Court has not commented upon the

merits of the case.

With the aforesaid observations, this petition is disposed of.

(Vishal Mishra) Judge

AM.

Digitally signed by ANINDYA SUNDAR MUKHOPADHYAY Date: 2021.10.05 16:50:17 +05'30'