Pushpendra Kumar Sharma vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2021 Latest Caselaw 6899 MP

                                                                       1                               WP-22866-2021
                                           The High Court Of Madhya Pradesh
                                                      WP-22866-2021
                                         (PUSHPENDRA KUMAR SHARMA Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS)


                                   Jabalpur, Dated : 27-10-2021
                                         Shri Brindawan Tiwari, learned counsel for the petitioner.

                                         Shri S.K.Singh, learned Panel Lawyer for the State.
                                         Challenge being made to the transfer order dated 5.8.2021 whereby the
                                   petitioner has been transferred from Patera, District Damoh, Division Sagar,
                                   to Govt. Homeopathy Dispensary Tamsar, District Sidhi, Division Rewa.

                                         It is submitted that the transfer of the petitioner is just to accommodate
                                   the respondent no.5 as the transfer of the respondent no.5 is on his own

request whereas the petitioner is shown to have been transferred on administrative ground. Another ground taken for challenging the transfer order is that the seniority of the petitioner will be affected as the transfer order clearly reflects that he has to be placed at the bottom of the seniority list. In such circumstances, he has preferred a detailed representation to the respondent authorities which is still kept pending and is not decided till date. An innocuous prayer is made to direct the respondent authorities to consider

and decide the pending representation within a time bound frame.

Per contra, learned counsel for the State has vehemently opposed the prayer made in the petition and submitted that the petitioner has waited almost more than two months to file the petition before this Court challenging the transfer order. Mere filing a representation does not give right to the petitioner to explain the delay in filing the petition. The other person who has been transferred in place of the petitioner has already joined at the transferred place, therefore, no interim relief can be extended to the petitioner. As far as consideration of the representation is concerned, he fairly submits that the same will be considered and decided expeditiously. He has placed reliance upon the Division Bench judgment in the case of R.S.Choudhary Vs. State of M.P. and others, ILR (2007) MP 1329 and Mridul Kumar Sharma Vs. State Signature Not Verified SAN of M.P., ILR (2015) MP 2556 and submits that in terms of the direction given Digitally signed by HEMANT SARAF Date: 2021.10.29 16:25:41 IST 2 WP-22866-2021 by the Division Bench, the petitioner is bound to comply with the transfer order.

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. On perusal of the record it is seen that the transfer of the petitioner from Patera, District Damoh, Division Sagar, to Govt. Homeopathy Dispensary Tamsar,

District Sidhi, Division Rewa is shown to be on administrative ground whereas the employee transferred in place of the petitioner is on his own request; but, the fact remains that the transfer order is not being assailed by the petitioner for almost more than two and half months and other incumbent, i.e. the respondent no.5 has already joined in place of the petitioner. The representation is submitted by the petitioner which is pending consideration before the respondent no.2. The only direction which can be given is to direct the respondent no.2 to decide the representation at an early date. Considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case this petition is disposed of by directing the petitioner to file a fresh representation to the respondent no.2 along with copy of this order within a period of seven working days from today and in case such a representation is filed, the respondent no.2 is directed to dwell upon the representation and decide the same by self contained speaking order and communicate the outcome within thirty days from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.

The petition is disposed of accordingly.

This court has not expressed any opinion on merits of the case.

(VISHAL MISHRA) JUDGE

HS

Signature Not Verified SAN

Digitally signed by HEMANT SARAF Date: 2021.10.29 16:25:41 IST