Gokul Prasad Lodhi vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2021 Latest Caselaw 5213 MP

                                                         1                               WP-17392-2021
                              The High Court Of Madhya Pradesh
                                         WP-17392-2021
                               (GOKUL PRASAD LODHI Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS)


                      Jabalpur, Dated : 08-09-2021
                            Heard through Video Conferencing.

                            Shri Amit Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner.
                            Shri Kamlesh Dwivedi, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondents/State.

This transfer petition is being filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the order dated 31.08.2021 (Annexure P-1); whereby, the

petitioner has been transferred from Chhindwara to Damoh.

It is stated that the petitioner is at the verge of his retirement and will be retiring in December, 2022. It is submitted that looking to the family problem faced by the petitioner, he has submitted his representation for consent at some nearby place, but the same has not been taken care of by the authorities and he has been transferred at the distance of 180 kilometers from the present place of posting causing further more hardships to the petitioner.

It is argued that he is having only 14 months to retire then the representation filed by the petitioner may be considered by the authorities on

sympathetic grounds and till the decision on the representation he may be permitted to work at the present place of posting.

Per contra, State counsel has no objection on the decision on the representation submitted by the petitioner within a stipulated time frame but as far as the ground of interim relief is concerned it is objected by the State counsel pointing out that the petitioner is due to retire in December, 2022 i.e. more than one year; therefore, no flaw of transfer policy is made by transferring the petitioner. As far as the application of the petitioner regarding transferring him at some nearby place is concerned that will be considered by the authorities. He has relied upon the judgment passed by this Court 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 v. State of Signature Not SAN Verified M.P. and Others reported in ILR (2015) MP 2556 and has argued that Digitally signed by TAJAMMUL HUSSAIN KHAN Date: 2021.09.09 10:50:26 IST 2 WP-17392-2021 transfer being a condition of service; therefore, employee is duty bound to comply with the transfer.

Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. Transfer being one of the condition of service as has been held by the Division Bench in the case of R.S. Chaudhary (supra) and Mridul Kumar

Sharma (supra). It is seen from the record that the petitioner is due to retire in December, 2022; therefore there is no flaw of any of the conditions of the transfer policy.

In the facts and circumstances of the case, the petitioner is directed to file a fresh representation along with the consent which has been given by him to the respondent no.1 within a period of seven days from today and in case such a representation is filed the respondent no.1 is directed to dwell upon the representation and pass a self contained speaking order and communicate the outcome to the petitioner within a period of 15 days from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.

Needless to say that this Court has not commented upon the merits of the case.

With the aforesaid observations, this petition stands disposed of. Certified copy as per rules.

                                                                                (VISHAL MISHRA)
                                                                                     JUDGE


                      taj




Signature
 SAN      Not
Verified

Digitally signed by
TAJAMMUL
HUSSAIN KHAN
Date: 2021.09.09
10:50:26 IST