Krishna Nagwanshi vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2021 Latest Caselaw 5355 MP

                                                              1                          WP-17530-2021
                              The High Court Of Madhya Pradesh
                                         WP-17530-2021
                                (KRISHNA NAGWANSHI Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS)

                      2
                      Jabalpur, Dated : 13-09-2021
                            Heard through Video Conferencing.
                            Shri Utkarsh Agarwal, learned counsel for the petitioner.
                            Shri A.P.Singh,         learned       Deputy Advocate   General for      the
                      respondents/State.

In pursuance to the order dated 08.09.2021, learned counsel for the

petitioner has brought to the notice of this Court the distinguishing feature in the judgment passed in the case of Gram Panchayat, Hardi Vs. Anil Dixit and others, 2016 (1) MPLJ, 29 and the case in hand deals with transfer from one Janpad to another Janpad.

It is argued that Section 47(1)(a) of Madhya Pradesh Panchayat Raj Avam Gram Swaraj Adhiniyam, 1993 has not been taken into consideration in the case of Gram Panchayat, Hardi (supra).

Learned counsel for the petitioner has brought to the notice of this Court to the orders passed by the coordinate Benches in Writ Petition

No.16307/2021 (Zainul Abdin Vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh and others) and Writ Petition No.17561/2021 (Dharamraj Yadav Vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh and others) wherein similar petitions were disposed of granting interim relief to the petitioner and further direction to decide the representation but the question with respect to consideration of Section 47 is still not decided by the authorities.

Learned counsel appearing for the State though brought to the notice of this Court an order passed by the Division Bench of this Court on 27.02.2021 in W.A.No.31/2011, wherein it is held that the appointing Authority is having every right to transfer the employee and the C.E.O. is the appointing authority of the employee like petitioner, therefore, the denial was

Signature Not made to interfere into the transfer order. However, again it is pointed out that SAN Verified

Digitally signed by ANINDYA SUNDAR MUKHOPADHYAY Date: 2021.09.13 18:07:39 IST 2 WP-17530-2021 Section 47 (1) (a) has not been dealt with by the Division Bench of this Court also.

Learned counsel appearing for the respondents/State prays for and is granted a day's time to verify the aforesaid aspect and address on the question of competence of the authority to transfer the petitioner.

Matter is directed to be listed on 15.09.2021 for consideration on the

question of interim relief.

                                                                              (VISHAL MISHRA)
                                                                                   JUDGE


                      AM




Signature
 SAN      Not
Verified

Digitally signed by
ANINDYA SUNDAR
MUKHOPADHYAY
Date: 2021.09.13
18:07:39 IST