Madhya Pradesh High Court
Bhupeshwar @ Bhumeshwar Goutam vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 14 September, 2021
Author: Vishal Mishra
1 WP-18433-2021
The High Court Of Madhya Pradesh
WP-18433-2021
(BHUPESHWAR @ BHUMESHWAR GOUTAM Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS)
1
Jabalpur, Dated : 14-09-2021
Heard through Video Conferencing.
Shri B.K. Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Shri Shivam Hazari, learned panel lawyer for the respondents/State.
Challenge is being made to the transfer order dated 31.8.2021 whereby
the petitioner services has been transferred by the respondent No.2 from
Public Health Engineering Department, Sub Division Amarpatan, District-
Satna to Public Health Engineering Department, Sub Division Lakhnadon,
District-Seoni, which is 150 kms away, on administrative grounds.
I t is pointed out that transfer order is violative of Clause 14 of the
transfer policy dated 24.06.2021 wherein the transfer of the employees
working in the tribal area should not be made prior to the completion of
normal tenure of three years. It is alleged that the petitioner was recently
posted at the present place of posting in the year 2019 and has not completed
three years of normal tenure. In such circumstances, transfer order is violative
of Clause 14 of the transfer policy. It is further submitted that petitioner has
submitted a detailed representation to the respondent/Authorities. The same is
pending consideration and has not been decided.
An innocuous prayer is made to get the representation decided at an
early date and as the petitioner has not been relieved, he may be permitted to
work at the present place of posting i.e. Public Health Engineering
Department, Sub Division Lakhnadon, District-Seoni.
Per contra, learned counsel for the State has pointed out the transfer
order has made from one tribal area to another tribal area which is reflected
from page 22 of the compilation. Thus, there is no violation of Clause 14 of
the transfer policy as the transfer from one tribal area to another tribal area
Signature Not can be made. As far as the representation is concerned, the same will be
SAN
Verified
Digitally signed by
MOHD IRFAN
SIDDIQUI
Date: 2021.09.15
10:53:31 IST
2 WP-18433-2021
decided at an early date. He has placed reliance on judgment passed by the
Division Bench of this Court in the case of R.S.Choudhary Vs. State of
M.P. and others reported in ILR (2007) MP 1329 and Mridul Kumar
Sharma Vs. State of M.P. reported in ILR (2015) MP 2556 and submitted
that the only relief which can be granted to the petitioner is a direction to
decide the representation and if the petitioner prefers a fresh representation to
the respondent No.1 in pursuance to the transfer order, then the same will be
considered and decided expeditiously.
Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
Considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case and also
the fact that the petitioner has been transferred from one tribal area to another
tribal area after 2-1/2 years and there appears to be no violation of any of the
conditions of transfer policy as the transfer from one tribal area to another
tribal area can be permissible and also considering the judgment passed by
the Division Bench, this Court deems it appropriate to dispose of this writ
petition with a direction to the petitioner to re-submit the
application/representation to the respondent No.1 within a period of seven
days from today and in case such representation is filed, the respondent No.1
is directed to dwell upon the same and pass a self-contained speaking order
redressing the grievances of the petitioner and communicate the outcome to
the petitioner within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of certified
copy of this order.
With the aforesaid observations, the petition stands disposed of.
(VISHAL MISHRA)
JUDGE
irfan
Signature
SAN Not
Verified
Digitally signed by
MOHD IRFAN
SIDDIQUI
Date: 2021.09.15
10:53:31 IST
