Madhya Pradesh High Court
Geetanjali Gupta vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 28 October, 2021
Author: Vijay Kumar Shukla
W.A. No. 936 of 2021
1
THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR
MADHYA PRADESH, AT JABALPUR
(DIVISION BENCH)
WRIT APPEAL No. 936 OF 2021
Geetanjali Gupta
-Versus-
State of M.P. & Others.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
CORAM :
Hon'ble Shri Justice Ravi Malimath, Chief Justice.
Hon'ble Shri Justice Vijay Kumar Shukla, Judge.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shri Ashok Kumar Gupta, learned counsel for the
applicant.
Shri A.P. Singh, learned Dy. Advocate General for the
respondents/State.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
JUDGEMENT
(Jabalpur: 28.10.2021)
Per: Vijay Kumar Shukla, J.
The present intra-court appeal has been filed under Section 2(1) of
the Madhya Pradesh Uchcha Nyayalaya (Khand Nyayapeeth Ko Appeal)
Adhiniyam, 2005, being aggrieved by the order dated 17.09.2021 passed
by the learned Single Judge in W.P. No. 18393 of 2021 (Geetanjali Gupta
Vs. State of M.P. & Ors.), whereby the writ petition filed by the
petitioner/appellant has been dismissed in the light of the order dated
17.09.2021 passed in the case of Varun Singh Baghel Vs. The State of
Madhya Pradesh and Others (W.P. No. 17589 of 2021).
W.A. No. 936 of 2021
2. The appellant who is working as Assistant Block Development
Manager has challenged the transfer order dated 31.08.2021, whereby she
has been transferred from Development Block Jaithari, District Anuppur
to Development Block Pandhurna, District Chhindwara.
3. The contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is that she
is a contract employee and therefore, her service cannot be transferred.
Learned counsel for the appellant relied on the judgment dated
25.09.2021 passed by the co-ordinate Bench of this Court in W.A. No.
281 of 2021 (Seema Pasi Vs. The State of M.P. & ors.) and submitted
that the present case is covered by the said judgment.
4. Learned Dy. Advocate General for the respondents/State submitted
that the appellant has stayed at the present place of posting for more than
9 years and she has been transferred on administrative exigencies. He
further submitted that the judgment passed in the case of Seema Pasi
(supra) would not apply in the facts of the present case. In the said case
the Court has interfered on the ground that the appellant was transferred
under rationalization, treating her to be a surplus employee but in her
place another person was adjusted.
5. In the case in hand, appellant has remained at the present place of
posting for more than 09 years and therefore, on administrative ground,
she has been transferred. He further relied on the judgment dated
25.10.2021 passed by this Court in W.A. No. 960 of 2021 (Smt. Kalpna
W.A. No. 936 of 2021
Gandhare Vs. State of M.P. & Ors.), where this Court has taken into
consideration Clause 3.5 of the Model Human Resource Manual and held
that the services of the employees are transferable. Clause 3.5 of the
Model Human Resource Manual is reproduced as under:
"3.5- Staff Appointment and Contract,-
A contract i.e., 'a legal binding arrangement between
SRLM and the concerned staff for performing their
roles and duties while engaged as staff under SRLM
'would be signed once the selected candidates confirm
their joining after probation period.
The recruitment and selection of staff in SRLM
in general would be on a fixed tenure basis. All such
appointments would follow the Recruitment and
Selection Policy of SRLM.
In general, all staff engaged on fixed tenure
basis would have three year tenure, unless otherwise
decided by the SMD/CEO, EC or the Governing
Board, as the case may be. Other terms of contract
include:
Contract would be renewed annually subject to
satisfactory annual Performance Appraisal
All fixed tenure staff would be transferable as
per the needs of SRLM.
The contract of Fixed Tenure Staff may be
terminated upon unsatisfactory performance (as per
Performance Appraisal) or, terminated due to
disciplinary action or may end after completion of the
contract period or may end voluntarily (resignation)
by the staff.
For other staff, the terms and conditions of
work and conduct would be defined in the contract."
6. Taking into consideration the aforesaid clause and the appointment
order where the appellant is required to execute a contract with the
W.A. No. 936 of 2021
Department and from perusal of the aforesaid condition of the
appointment and contract, it is clear that the services of the appellant is
transferable as per the needs of State Rural Livelihoods Mission (SRLM).
7. Further, taking into consideration the submission of learned
counsel for the respondents that the appellant has remained at present
place of posting for more than 9 years and has been transferred on
administrative ground, we are not inclined to interfere with the impugned
transfer order.
9. We do not find any error in the order passed by learned Single
Judge and the findings ascribed in the impugned order are impeccable
and the same do not warrant any interference in the present intra-court
appeal.
9. Accordingly, the writ appeal, being sans merit, is dismissed.
Pending interlocutory application (s), if any, is also disposed of. There
shall be no order as to costs.
(RAVI MALIMATH) (VIJAY KUMAR SHUKLA)
CHIEF JUSTICE JUDGE
Amitabh
Digitally signed by AMITABH RANJAN
Date: 2021.10.30 12:51:06 +05'30'
