Satish Kumar Patel vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2021 Latest Caselaw 5266 MP

                                                          1                              WP-17868-2021
                                 The High Court Of Madhya Pradesh
                                            WP-17868-2021
                                 (SATISH KUMAR PATEL Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS)

                      1
                      Jabalpur, Dated : 09-09-2021
                            Heard through Video Conferencing.
                            Shri B.K. Upadhyay, learned counsel for the petitioner.
                            Shri Gourav Tiwari, 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-3); whereby, the

petitioner has been transferred from Govt. Hr. Secondary School Maharajpur to Govt. Hr. Secondary School Karrapur.

It is stated that the petitioner that frequently been transfer. Earlier he was transferred on 27.2.2019. He has been transferred at the distance of 130 kms. It is submitted that petitioner has met within an accident and he is not able to move. The Principal, D.E.O. has issued a letter vide Annexure-P-3 recommending the cancellation of transfer of the petitioner. He has already submitted a detailed representation to the respondent No.3 but the same has not been taken care of by the authorities and he has been transferred at the

distance of 130 kilometers from the present place of posting causing further more hardships to the petitioner. The representation submitted by the petitioner has not been decided till date and the petitioner has not relieved till date. It is argued that the representation filed by the petitioner may be considered by the authorities on sympathetic grounds and till the decision on t h e representation he may be permitted to work at the present place of posting.

P er contra, State counsel has no objection on the decision on the representation submitted by the petitioner within a stipulated time frame. The impugned transfer order is passed from the approval of the concerning Minister. The petitioner was directed to join at the transfer place of posting

Signature Not within three days from the transfer order dated 31.8.2021. He has relied upon SAN Verified

Digitally signed by MOHD IRFAN SIDDIQUI Date: 2021.09.09 16:26:51 IST 2 WP-17868-2021 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 M.P. and Others reported in ILR (2015) MP 2556 and has argued that 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).

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.3 within a period of seven days from today and in case such a representation is filed the respondent no.3 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 30 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


                      irfan




Signature
 SAN      Not
Verified

Digitally signed by
MOHD IRFAN
SIDDIQUI
Date: 2021.09.09
16:26:51 IST