Phoolwati Prajapati vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2021 Latest Caselaw 5403 MP

                                                         1                              WP-18408-2021
                              The High Court Of Madhya Pradesh
                                         WP-18408-2021
                               (PHOOLWATI PRAJAPATI Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS)


                      Jabalpur, Dated : 14-09-2021
                            Heard through Video Conferencing.

                            Shri Ajeet Kumar Rawat, counsel for the petitioner.
                            Shri Kamlesh Dwivedi, Panel Lawyer for the respondents/State.

Challenge is being made to the transfer order dated 31.08.2021; whereby the petitioner has been transferred from Government Primary

School, Majra Takha, District Tikamgarh to Government Girls Primary School, Malguwan, District Tikamgarh at a short distance of 15 kilometers.

The challenge is made only on the ground that there is violation of Clause-27 of the Transfer Policy as the son and daughter of the petitioner are physically handicapped carrying 30% and 45% disability respectively. The certificates to this effect are filed along with the application. It is submitted that in such circumstances, Clause-27 of the Transfer Policy specifically provides for own request transfer at the place where there is facility available for imparting education to the disabled children. He has submitted a detailed

representation to the respondent authorities and also an application requesting for his transfer own his own expenses, the same is kept pending and not being decided till date. It is submitted that direction be issued to the authorities to consider and decide the pending application expeditiously and till the decision of the representation the petitioner may be permitted to continue at Government Primary School Majra Takha, District Tikamgarh.

Per contra, State counsel has opposed the prayer and submitted that the transfer is a condition of service and the transfer is on administrative grounds and the petitioner is being transferred only at a distance of 50 kilometers from the present place of posting. As far as the violation of Clause-27 of the Transfer Policy is concerned the representation submitted by the petitioner will be considered and decided expeditiously in view of the Signature Not SAN Verified judgments passed by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of R.S. Digitally signed by TAJAMMUL HUSSAIN KHAN Date: 2021.09.15 11:36:16 IST 2 WP-18408-2021 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, as interim relief of permitting the petitioner to continue at the present place of posting cannot be granted.

Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. On

perusal of the record, it is seen that the petitioner's transfer is at a short distance of 50 kilometers. The law is well settled with respect to transfer of the Government employee in the case of R.S. Chaudhary and Others (supra) and in the case of Mridul Kumar Sharma (supra). As the petitioner has already submitted a detailed representation pointing out violation of Clause-27 of the Transfer Policy to the respondent no.4 the respondent no.4 is directed to consider and decide the pending representation within a period of 15 days from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order and outcome be communicated to the petitioner.

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: 2021.09.15
11:36:16 IST