Virendra Shrivastava vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2021 Latest Caselaw 6299 MP

                                  (1)              W.A.No.831/2021

           HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH,
                 BENCH AT GWALIOR

                      Writ Appeal No.831/2021

                          Virendra Shrivastav
                                   Vs.
                       State of M.P. and others
                                 Coram:

             Hon. Shri Justice S.A.Dharmadhikari
               Hon. Shri Justice Anand Pathak

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shri Romesh Pratap Singh, learned counsel for the appellant.
Shri Dheeraj Budholiya, learned Panel Lawyer for the
respondents/State.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                               ORDER

( 01/10/2021 )

This Writ Appeal preferred under Section 2 of the

Madhya Pradesh Uchch Nyayalaya (Khand Nyay Peeth Ko

Appeal) Adhiniyam, 2005 arises out of the order dt.08.09.2021

passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.17519/2021,

whereby the Writ Petition challenging the transfer order of the

appellant dt.31.08.2021, has been dismissed.

2. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the

appellant, who is working on the post of Assistant Grade III,

has been transferred from Tahsil Office Chanderi to Tahsil

Office Nai Saria within district of Ashok Nagar vide order (2) W.A.No.831/2021

dt.31.08.2021. Said order was challenged by the appellant in

W.P.No.17519/2021 on the ground of frequent transfer. It is

submitted that since the last two years, the appellant has been

transferred four times including the present transfer. Learned

counsel for the appellant relied on the policy dt.24/06/2021, in

which it is provided that every employee deserves a tenure of

three years on a particular place of posting. It is further pointed

out that the appellant is Chanderi Block President of M.P.

Rajya Karmachari Sangh and as per the policy the member of

the Society normally should not be transferred for four years,

which violates Clause 33 of the Transfer policy. Learned

counsel further relied on the judgment of the Apex Court in the

case of T.S.R.Subramanian and others Vs. Union of India

and others reported in (2013) 15 SCC 732, in which it has

been held has under :-

"35. We notice, at present the civil servants are not having stability of tenure, particularly in the State Governments where transfers and postings are made frequently, at the whims and fancies of the executive head for political and other considerations and not in public interest. The necessity of minimum tenure has been endorsed and implemented by the Union Government. In fact, we notice, almost 13 States have accepted the necessity of a minimum tenure for civil servants. Fixed minimum tenure would not only enable the civil servants to achieve their professional targets, but also help them to function as effective instruments of public policy. Repeated (3) W.A.No.831/2021

shuffling/transfer of the officers is deleterious to good governance. Minimum assured service tenure ensures efficient service delivery and also increased efficiency. They can also prioritize various social and economic measures intended to implement for the poor and marginalized sections of the society."

It is lastly contended that the representation raising all the

grounds has been made by the appellant but the same is still

pending.

3. In response, learned Panel Lawyer appearing for the

respondent/State submits that no interference with the order of

transfer as well as the order passed by the learned Single Judge

is warranted. The transfer policy is only in the nature of

guidelines having no statutory force. Learned Single Judge has

rightly dismissed the writ petition. On such ground, prayer for

dismissal of the Writ Appeal has been made.

4. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, this Writ

Appeal is disposed of with direction to the appellant to file a

fresh detailed representation before the competent Authority

within seven days from the date of receipt of certified copy of

this order. If such a representation is filed together with

certified copy of this order, the Authority concerned shall

decide the same within next two weeks by a self contained

speaking order in accordance with law.

(4) W.A.No.831/2021

It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any

opinion on the merits of the case.

With the aforesaid modification in the order

dt.08.03.2021 passed by the learned Single Judge in

W.P.No.17519/2021, this Writ Appeal is disposed of finally.

                         (S.A.Dharmadhikari)                     (Anand Pathak)
                               Judge                                Judge
           SP

SANJEEV
KUMAR PHANSE
2021.10.04
10:36:59 +05'30'