Ram Gopal Dehariya vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2021 Latest Caselaw 6280 MP

          THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH

                    Writ Petition No.20027 of 2021
    (Ram Gopal Dehariya Vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh and others)




Jabalpur, Dated : 01.10.2021

      None for the petitioner.

      Shri Sanjeev K. Singh, learned panel lawyer for the

respondents/State.

The present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of

India has been filed assailing the transfer order dated 31.08.2021

whereby the petitioner has been transferred from Government

Primary School, Aanjanapur, Block Harrai District Chhindwara to

Government Primary School Tekadhana, Block Junnardev District

Chhindwara.

It is argued that the transfer order has been passed without

providing any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. It is seen from

the memo of petition that the grounds which have been raised are that

the State Government has issued a circular relaxing the transfer

during this Covid-19 pandemic. The respondent No.3 has passed the

transfer order of the petitioner during the ban period. The petitioner

neither falls under the category of surplus employee nor the petitioner

has been transferred on his own request, therefore, there appears to be

no administrative exigency in transferring the petitioner. The prior

approval of the Collector or the In-charge Minister of the concerned

District has not been taken to transferring the petitioner. He has been

transferred at a distance of 180 Kms from the present place of

posting. In such circumstances, he has already preferred a detail

representation to the respondents/authorities but the same is pending THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH

Writ Petition No.20027 of 2021 (Ram Gopal Dehariya Vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh and others)

consideration and has not been considered and decided till date and,

therefore, the relief for quashment of the transfer order is prayed for.

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. It is submitted that no ground could be made out by the

petitioner seeking interference in the transfer order. The transfer of

the petitioner is at a short distance of 180 Kms and within the same

district. 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 the only relief which can be extended to the petitioner

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

pending representation at an early date.

Heard the learned counsel for the respondents and perused the

record.

It is seen from the record that the petitioner has been

transferred at a short distance of 180 kms within the same district.

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. Law in respect to the transfer is well settled in view of THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH

Writ Petition No.20027 of 2021 (Ram Gopal Dehariya Vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh and others)

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 to consider and decide the pending representation at an THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH

Writ Petition No.20027 of 2021 (Ram Gopal Dehariya Vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh and others)

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.3 within a period of 7

days and in case such representation is filed, the respondent No.3 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.

THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH

Writ Petition No.20027 of 2021 (Ram Gopal Dehariya Vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh and others)

Jabalpur, Dated : 01.10.2021

Challenge being made to the transfer order dated ________

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

transferred from _______ to ________.

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...... 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

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 THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH

Writ Petition No.20027 of 2021 (Ram Gopal Dehariya Vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh and others)

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 Mridul Kumar.. 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.

All the grounds which have been raised by the petitioner are

mere personal inconveniences and looking to the judgments passed

by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of R.S.Choudhary

Vs. ____ wherein it is held as under :-

and in the case of Mridul Kumar Vs. State of M.P._______ wherein

it is held as under :-

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

respondents to consider and decide the pending representation at an THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH

Writ Petition No.20027 of 2021 (Ram Gopal Dehariya Vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh and others)

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 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 16:49:46 +05'30'