Madhya Pradesh High Court
Radheshyam Gupta vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 4 October, 2021
Author: Vishal Mishra
1 WP-21233-2021
The High Court Of Madhya Pradesh
WP-21233-2021
(RADHESHYAM GUPTA Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS)
1
Jabalpur, Dated : 04-10-2021
Heard through Video Conferencing.
Shri Rajesh Prasad Dubey, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Shri Shivam Hazari, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondents/State.
Challenge being made to transfer order dated 31.08.2021 (Annexure
P/1) whereby, the petitioner has been transferred from Singrauli to Sagar
which is at a distance of 600 Kms, on administrative ground.
It is pointed that that no one is posted in place of petitioner. the
transfer order is violation of transfer policy. The petitioner has not been
relieved till date and no body has been posted in place of the petitioner. He
has preferred a detailed representation before respondent authority and the
same is kept pending for consideration and not yet been decided till date. An
innocuous prayer is made to direct the respondent authorities to consider and
decide the pending representation of the petitioner within a short time and
petitioner may be permitted to continue at the present place of posting till the
decision on the representation.
Learned counsel appearing for the respondents opposed the prayer
stating that the petitioner is duty bound and has to comply with the transfer
order. As far as violation of transfer policy is concerned, petitioner could not
establish the aforesaid aspect that whether anybody else has been posted in
place of the petitioner or not or it is a solitary ground of the transfer of the
petitioner, therefore, warranting no interference in the transfer order. Violation
of Transfer Policy could be pointed out by the petitioner calling interference
in the transfer order in view of the judgments passed by the Division Bench in
the case of R.S. Chaudhary and Others v. State of M.P. and Others,
ILR (2007) MP 1329 and in the case of Mridul Kumar Sharma Vs.
Signature Not Verified
SAN
State of M.P. and others reported in ILR (2015) MP 2556. I t is
Digitally signed by MOHD IRFAN
SIDDIQUI
Date: 2021.10.05 16:22:30 IST
2 WP-21233-2021
submitted that the only remedy available to the petitioner is that the
representation will be considered and decided within 15 days.
Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
O n perusal of the record, it is seen that the petitioner has been
transferred at a distance of 600 Kms on administrative ground. No body is
posted in place of petitioner. It is for the respondent No.1 to take care of the
aforesaid aspect. The Division Bench has categorically held that the grounds
for interference in the transfer order are clear as has been held in the case of
R.S.Chaudhary Vs. State of M.P. and others reported in ILR (2007)
MP 1329 wherein the Court has 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."
The Division Bench of this Court in Mridul Kumar Sharma Vs.
State of M.P. Reported in I.L.R (2015) MP 2556, has 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,
o r 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".
I n such circumstances, no interim relief can be extended to the
petitioner. The only relief which can be given is to direct the petitioner to file a
fresh representation before the respondent No.1 within a period of seven days
and in turn the respondent No.1 is directed to dwell upon the representation
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
Signature Not Verified
SAN
to the petitioner.
Digitally signed by MOHD IRFAN
SIDDIQUI
Date: 2021.10.05 16:22:30 IST
3 WP-21233-2021
Needless to mention here that this Court has not commented upon the
merits of the case.
With the aforesaid, this petition stands disposed of.
Certified copy as per rules.
(VISHAL MISHRA)
JUDGE
irfan
Signature Not Verified
SAN
Digitally signed by MOHD IRFAN
SIDDIQUI
Date: 2021.10.05 16:22:30 IST
